Knowledge Management

JAMNALAL BAJAJ INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES
Knowledge Management
Applying, Creating, Structuring & Sharing
SAGAR PATEL
MMM-1/Batch-2nd
Roll.no – 14 M 508
Abstract:
Thisis an article onknowledge managementcoveringthe theories, frameworks, models, tools,
and supportingdisciplinesthatare relevanttoboththe studentandthe practitioner.The goal of
thisarticle isto provide acomprehensiveoverview of knowledge managementby examining its
objectives, scope, strategy, best practices, knowledge management tools, and so on.

1
INDEX
Sr No. Topics Page No.
1 Introduction – Knowledge Management
Defining knowledge, information and data
3
2 About – Knowledge, Information and Data
Defining knowledge, information and data
The different types of knowledge
4
3 What is Knowledge Management
Knowledge Management definition
Why knowledge management is useful?
Information management vs Knowledge management
11
4 Organizational Knowledge
Introducing organizational knowledge
The SECI model
Organization memory
16
5 Organizational Learning
Introducing organizational learning
Organizational learning theory
Organizational learning and communities of practice
22
6 Organizational culture and leadership
Introducing organizational culture and leadership
Leadership and learning organization
29
7 Knowledge Management Models
Knowledge management framework
Three knowledge management models
Integrated knowledge management models
33
8 Knowledge Management Process
Introduction
Knowledge discovery and detection
Knowledge organization and assessment
Knowledge Sharing
Knowledge Reuse
Knowledge Creation
Knowledge Acquisition
44
9 Knowledge Management Strategy
Introduction
Organizational Structure
Organizational culture and change
Knowledge retention
Manage core competencies
Manage external network
Knowledge management system
Knowledge management best practices
67

2
10 Knowledge Management tools by category(IT Based)
Introduction
Groupware and Knowledge management 2.0
The intranet and extranet
Data warehousing and Data mining
Decision support system
Content management system
Document management system
89
11 Knowledge Management Resources(NonIT Based)
Introduction
Cross function project team
Knowledge management training
Storytelling
Mentoring
104
12 Knowledge Management failure factors
Knowledge management failure
Lack of definition of knowledge management
Failure knowledge management
109
13 Knowledge Management careers and skills
Career in knowledge management
Knowledge management position and role
Knowledge management skills
113
14 References 119
15 Case Studies
ICICI Bank
IT Industries
XEROX
NTPC
E-Governance
Managing Peoples knowledge
134

3
Knowledge Management
This is an article on knowledge management covering the theories,
frameworks, models, tools, and supporting disciplines that are relevant to both
the student and the practitioner. The goal of this article is to provide a
comprehensive overview of knowledge management by examining its
objectives, scope, strategy, best practices, knowledge management tools, and so
on.
Introducing Knowledge Management
Knowledge management is essentially about getting the right knowledge to the
right person at the right time. This in itself may not seem so complex, but it
implies a strong tie to corporate strategy, understanding of where and in what
forms knowledge exists, creating processes that span organizational functions,
and ensuring that initiatives are accepted and supported by organizational
members. Knowledge management may also include new knowledge creation,
or it may solely focus on knowledge sharing, storage, and refinement. It is

4
important to remember that knowledge management is not about managing
knowledge for knowledge's sake.
 KM Strategy: Knowledge management strategy must be dependent on corporate
strategy. The objective is to manage, share, and create relevant knowledge assets that will
help meet tactical and strategic requirements.
 Organizational Culture: The organizational culture influences the way people
interact, the context within which knowledge is created, the resistance they will have
towards certain changes, and ultimately the way they share (or the way they do not share)
knowledge.
 Organizational Processes: The right processes, environments, and systems that enable
KM to be implemented in the organization.
 Management & Leadership: KM requires competent and experienced leadership at all
levels. There are a wide variety of KM-related roles that an organization may or may not
need to implement, including a CKO, knowledge managers, knowledge brokers and so
on.
 Technology: The systems, tools, and technologies that fit the organization's
requirements - properly designed and implemented.
 Politics: The long-term support to implement and sustain initiatives that involve
virtually all organizational functions, which may be costly to implement (both from the
perspective of time and money), and which often do not have a directly visible return on
investment.
Defining Knowledge, Information, Data
Before one can begin to talk about knowledge management (KM), one must
start by clearly defining the meaning of the word "knowledge". It is important
to understand what constitutes knowledge and what falls under the category of
information or data. Unfortunately, this is a more difficult task than may be
apparent at first. Within everyday language, within specific fields, and even
within the same disciplines, the word "knowledge" often takes on a variety of
meanings.

5
Perspectives on Knowledge, Information, Data
In everyday language we use knowledge all the time. Sometimes we mean
know-how, while other times we are talking about wisdom. On many occasions
we even use it to refer to information. Part of the difficulty of defining
knowledge arises from its relationship to two other concepts, namely data and
information. These two terms are often regarded as lower denominations of
knowledge, but the exact relationship varies greatly from one example to
another.
Within more technologically oriented disciplines- particularly involving
information systems- knowledge is often treated very similarly to information.
It is seen as something one can codify and transmit, and where IT plays a
pivotal role in knowledge sharing. For instance, the encyclopedia at fact-
archive.com defines it as: "information that has a purpose or use."
This kind of simplistic view of knowledge was particularly widespread during
the 90s when information technology became increasingly more common.
However even today, some KM systems are little more than information
management systems using knowledge as a virtual synonym for information.
To illustrate, Theirauf (1999) defines the three components as follows: data is
the lowest point, an unstructured collection of facts and figures; information is
the next level, and it is regarded as structured data; finally knowledge is defined
as "information about information".
However, increasingly one sees definitions that treat knowledge as a more
complex and personal concept that incorporate more than just information. The
Longman online dictionary has one definition that begins to approach the way
that knowledge is usually regarded within KM. It states "the information, skills,
and understanding that you have gained through learning or experience."
Although still closely associated with information, concepts like skills,
understanding, and experience begin to surface.

6
Defining Data, Information, and Knowledge
Below, are the definitions that will be used throughout this literature.
Data: Facts and figures which relay something specific, but which are not
organized in any way and which provide no further information regarding
patterns, context, and etc. definition for data presented by Thierauf (1999):
"unstructured facts and figures that have the least impact on the typical
manager."
Information: For data to become information, it must be contextualized,
categorized, calculated and condensed (Davenport & Prusak 2000). Information
thus paints a bigger picture; it is data with relevance and purpose (Bali et al
2009). It may convey a trend in the environment, or perhaps indicate a pattern
of sales for a given period of time. Essentially information is found "in answers
to questions that begin with such words as who, what, where, when, and how
many" (Ackoff 1999).
IT is usually invaluable in the capacity of turning data into information,
particularly in larger firms that generate large amounts of data across multiple
departments and functions. The human brain is mainly needed to assist in
contextualization.

7
Knowledge: Knowledge is closely linked to doing and implies know-how and
understanding. The knowledge possessed by each individual is a product of his
experience, and encompasses the norms by which he evaluates new inputs from
his surroundings (Davenport & Prusak 2000). Definition presented by Gamble
and Blackwell (2001), based closely on a previous definition by Davenport &
Prusak:
"Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual
information, expert insight, and grounded intuition that provides an
environment and framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences
and information. It originates and is applied in the mind of the knowers. In
organizations it often becomes embedded not only in documents or
repositories, but also in organizational routines, practices and norms."
In order for KM to succeed, one needs a deep understanding of what constitutes
knowledge. Now that we have set clear boundaries between knowledge,
information, and data, it is possible to go one step further and look at the forms
in which knowledge exists and the different ways that it can be accessed,
shared, and combined.
The Different Types of Knowledge
Understanding the different forms that knowledge can exist in, and thereby
being able to distinguish between various types of knowledge, is an essential
step for knowledge management (KM). For example, it should be fairly evident
that the knowledge captured in a document would need to be managed (i.e.
stored, retrieved, shared, changed, etc.) in a totally different way than that
gathered over the years by an expert craftsman.
Over the centuries many attempts have been made to classify knowledge, and
different fields have focused on different dimensions. This has resulted in
numerous classifications and distinctions based in philosophy and even
religion.
Within business and KM, two types of knowledge are usually defined, namely
explicit and tacit knowledge. The former refers to codified knowledge, such as
that found in documents, while the latter refers to non-codified and often
personal/experience-based knowledge.

8
KM and organizational learning theory almost always take root in the
interaction and relationship between these two types of knowledge. This
concept has been introduced and developed by Nonaka in the 90's (e.g. Nonaka
1994) and remains a theoretical cornerstone of this discipline. Botha et al
(2008) point out that tacit and explicit knowledge should be seen as a spectrum
rather than as definitive points. Therefore in practice, all knowledge is a
mixture of tacit and explicit elements rather than being one or the other.
However, in order to understand knowledge, it is important to define these
theoretical opposites.
Some researchers make a further distinction and talk of embedded knowledge.
This way, one differentiates between knowledge embodied in people and that
embedded in processes, organizational culture, routines, etc. (Horvath 2000).
Gamble and Blackwell (2001) use a scale consisting of represented-embodied-
embedded knowledge, where the first two closely match the explicit-tacit.
Without question, the most important distinction within KM is between explicit
and tacit knowledge. However, embedded dimension is a valuable addition,
since the managerial requirements for this type of knowledge are quite
different. For this reason, the discussions on this literature will, when relevant,
use all three categorizations of knowledge but the focus will always be
primarily on the explicit-tacit dimension.
Below is an overview of these three categories, as well as a short discussion on
the way knowledge management systems (KMS) can/cannot be used to manage
them.

9
Explicit Knowledge
This type of knowledge is formalized and codified, and is sometimes referred
to as know-what (Brown & Duguid 1998). It is therefore fairly easy to identify,
store, and retrieve (Wellman 2009). This is the type of knowledge most easily
handled by KMS, which are very effective at facilitating the storage, retrieval,
and modification of documents and texts.
From a managerial perspective, the greatest challenge with explicit knowledge
is similar to information. It involves ensuring that people have access to what
they need; that important knowledge is stored; and that the knowledge is
reviewed, updated, or discarded.
Many theoreticians regard explicit knowledge as being less important (e.g.
Brown & Duguid 1991, Cook & Brown 1999, Bukowitz & Williams 1999,
etc.). It is considered simpler in nature and cannot contain the rich experience
based know-how that can generate lasting competitive advantage.
Although this is changing to some limited degree, KM initiatives driven by
technology have often had the flaw of focusing almost exclusively on this type
of knowledge. As discussed previously, in fields such as IT there is often a lack

10
of a more sophisticated definition. This has therefore created many products
labeled as KM systems, which in actual fact are/were nothing more than
information and explicit knowledge management software.
Explicit knowledge is found in: databases, memos, notes, documents, etc.
(Botha et al. 2008)
Tacit Knowledge
This type of knowledge was originally defined by Polanyi in 1966. It is
sometimes referred to as know-how (Brown & Duguid 1998) and refers to
intuitive, hard to define knowledge that is largely experience based. Because of
this, tacit knowledge is often context dependent and personal in nature. It is
hard to communicate and deeply rooted in action, commitment, and
involvement (Nonaka 1994).
Tacit knowledge is also regarded as being the most valuable source of
knowledge, and the most likely to lead to breakthroughs in the organization
(Wellman 2009). Gamble & Blackwell (2001) link the lack of focus on tacit
knowledge directly to the reduced capability for innovation and sustained
competitiveness.
KMS have a very hard time handling this type of knowledge. An IT system
relies on codification, which is something that is difficult/impossible for the
tacit knowledge holder.
Using a reference by Polanyi (1966), imagine trying to write an article that
would accurately convey how one reads facial expressions. It should be quite
apparent that it would be near impossible to convey our intuitive understanding
gathered from years of experience and practice. Virtually all practitioners rely
on this type of knowledge. An IT specialist for example will troubleshoot a
problem based on his experience and intuition. It would be very difficult for
him to codify his knowledge into a document that could convey his know-how
to a beginner. This is one reason why experience in a particular field is so
highly regarded in the job market.
The exact extent to which IT systems can aid in the transfer and enhancement
of tacit knowledge is a rather complicated discussion. For now, suffice it to say
that successful KM initiatives must place a very strong emphasis on the tacit

11
dimension, focusing primarily on the people involved, and they must
understand the limitations imposed by computerized systems.
Tacit knowledge is found in: the minds of human stakeholders. It includes
cultural beliefs, values, attitudes, mental models, etc. as well as skills,
capabilities and expertise (Botha et al 2008). On this literature, will generally
limit tacit knowledge to knowledge embodied in people, and refer separately to
embedded knowledge (as defined below), whenever making this distinction is
relevant.
Embedded Knowledge
Embedded knowledge refers to the knowledge that is locked in processes,
products, culture, routines, artifacts, or structures (Horvath 2000, Gamble &
Blackwell 2001). Knowledge is embedded either formally, such as through a
management initiative to formalize a certain beneficial routine, or informally as
the organization uses and applies the other two knowledge types.
The challenges in managing embedded knowledge vary considerably and will
often differ from embodied tacit knowledge. Culture and routines can be both
difficult to understand and hard to change. Formalized routines on the other
hand may be easier to implement and management can actively try to embed
the fruits of lessons learned directly into procedures, routines, and products.
IT's role in this context is somewhat limited but it does have some useful
applications. Broadly speaking, IT can be used to help map organizational
knowledge areas; as a tool in reverse engineering of products (thus trying to
uncover hidden embedded knowledge); or as a supporting mechanism for
processes and cultures. However, it has also been argued that IT can have a
disruptive influence on culture and processes, particularly if implemented
improperly.
Due to the difficulty in effectively managing embedded knowledge, firms that
succeed may enjoy a significant competitive advantage.
Embedded knowledge is found in: rules, processes, manuals, organizational
culture, codes of conduct, ethics, products, etc. It is important to note, that
while embedded knowledge can exist in explicit sources (i.e. a rule can be
written in a manual), the knowledge itself is not explicit, i.e. it is not

12
immediately apparent why doing something this way is beneficial to the
organization.
What is Knowledge Management?
The full scope of knowledge management (KM) is not something that is
universally accepted. However, before one looks at the differences in the
definitions, let's examine the similarities.
KM is about making the right knowledge available to the right people. It is
about making sure that an organization can learn, and that it will be able to
retrieve and use its knowledge assets in current applications as they are needed.
In the words of Peter Drucker it is "the coordination and exploitation
of organizational knowledge resources, in order to create benefit and competitive
advantage" (Drucker 1999).
Where the disagreement sometimes occurs is in conjunction with the creation
of new knowledge. Wellman (2009) limits the scope of KM to lessons learned
and the techniques employed for the management of what is already known. He
argues that knowledge creation is often perceived as a separate discipline and
generally falls under innovation management.
Bukowitz and Williams (1999) link KM directly to tactical and strategic
requirements. Its focus is on the use and enhancement of knowledge based
assets to enable the firm to respond to these issues. According to this view, the
answer to the question "what is knowledge management" would be
significantly broader.
A similarly broad definition is presented by Davenport & Prusak (2000), which
states that KM "is managing the corporation's knowledge through a
systematically and organizationally specified process for acquiring, organizing,
sustaining, applying, sharing and renewing both the tacit and explicit
knowledge of employees to enhance organizational performance and create
value."
I will also choose to answer the question "what is knowledge management" in
the broader perspective, encompassing not just the exploitation and
management of existing knowledge assets, but the also the initiatives involved
in the creation and acquisition of new knowledge.

13
Knowledge Management Definition
Based on the discussion in the previous section, knowledge management
definition is as follows:
Knowledge management is the systematic management of an organization's
knowledge assets for the purpose of creating value and meeting tactical &
strategic requirements; it consists of the initiatives, processes, strategies, and
systems that sustain and enhance the storage, assessment, sharing, refinement,
and creation of knowledge.
Knowledge management (KM) therefore implies a strong tie to organizational
goals and strategy, and it involves the management of knowledge that is useful
for some purpose and which creates value for the organization.
Expanding upon the previous knowledge management definition, KM involves
the understanding of:
Where and in what forms knowledge exists; what the organization needs to
know; how to promote a culture conducive to learning, sharing, and knowledge
creation; how to make the right knowledge available to the right people at the
right time; how to best generate or acquire new relevant knowledge; how to
manage all of these factors so as to enhance performance in light of the
organization's strategic goals and short term opportunities and threats.
KM must therefore create/provide the right tools, people, knowledge, structures
(teams, etc.), culture, etc. so as to enhance learning; it must understand the
value and applications of the new knowledge created; it must store this
knowledge and make it readily available for the right people at the right time;
and it must continuously assess, apply, refine, and remove organizational
knowledge in conjunction with concrete long and short term factors.
From this knowledge management definition we can see that it depends upon
the management of the organization's knowledge creation and conversion
mechanisms; organizational memory and retrieval facilities; organizational
learning; and organizational culture. These concepts will be explored in more
detail in the following sections.

14
Why is knowledge management useful?
Looking back at the work presented on this article, we can see how a beginner,
and particularly a manager new to the subject, might not easily understand why
knowledge management is useful for their particular situation.
Will keep this concise and to the point. Knowledge management is responsible
for understanding:
 What your organization knows.
 Where this knowledge is located, e.g. in the mind of a specific expert, a specific
department, in old files, with a specific team, etc.
 In what form this knowledge is stored e.g. the minds of experts, on paper, etc.
 How to best transfer this knowledge to relevant people, so as to be able to take
advantage of it or to ensure that it is not lost. E.g. setting up
a mentoring relationship between experienced experts and new employees,
implementing a document management system to provide access to key explicit
knowledge.
 The need to methodically assess the organization's actual know-how vs the
organization's needs and to act accordingly, e.g. by hiring or firing, by promoting
specific in-house knowledge creation, etc.
So, why is knowledge management useful? It is useful because it places a focus
on knowledge as an actual asset, rather than as something intangible. In so
doing, it enables the firm to better protect and exploit what it knows, and to
improve and focus its knowledge development efforts to match its needs. In
other words:
 It helps firms learn from past mistakes and successes.
 It better exploits existing knowledge assets by re-deploying them in areas where
the firm stands to gain something, e.g. using knowledge from one department to
improve or create a product in another department, modifying knowledge from a
past process to create a new solution, etc.
 It promotes a long term focus on developing the right competencies and skills and
removing obsolete knowledge.
 It enhances the firm's ability to innovate.
 It enhances the firm's ability to protect its key knowledge and competencies from
being lost or copied.
Unfortunately, KM is an area in which companies are often reluctant to invest
because it can be expensive to implement properly, and it is extremely difficult
to determine a specific ROI. Moreover KM is a concept the definition of which
is not universally accepted, and for example within IT one often sees a much
shallower, information-oriented approach. Particularly in the early days, this

15
has led to many "KM" failures and these have tarnished the reputation of the
subject as a whole. Sadly, even today, probably about one in three blogs that
we read on this subject have absolutely nothing to do with the KM.
Information Management vs Knowledge
Management
This has always been a bit of a tricky subject, because knowledge and
information are used interchangeably by so many people. Therefore, we will
often find KM solutions even today which are essentially nothing more than
information or document management systems, i.e. which handle data,
information, or perhaps even explicit knowledge, but which do not touch the
most essential part of KM - tacit knowledge.
Below you can find an info graphic of the main differences, with a short
explanation below. Please keep in mind that IM in many ways is a useful tool
for KM, in that information can help create and refine knowledge, but as a
discipline it is a different one.

16
As showed in the previous sections, knowledge and information are actually
quite different, as is tacit and explicit knowledge. So, while information and
data management are certainly very useful, particularly as information sources
are growing at exponential rates and with the new focus on big data, it is not
synonymous with KM.
So what exactly is the difference?
Information and IM:
 Focus on data and information

17
 Deal with unstructured and structured facts and figures.
 Benefit greatly from technology, since the information being conveyed is already
codified and in an easily transferrable form.
 Focus on organizing, analyzing, and retrieving - again due to the codified nature
of the information.
 Is largely about know-what, i.e. it offers a fact that you can then use to help create
useful knowledge, but in itself that
 Fact does not convey a course of action (e.g. sales of product x are up 25% last
quarter).
 Is easy to copy - due to its codified and easily transferrable nature.
Knowledge and KM:
 Focus on knowledge, understanding, and wisdom
 Deal with both codified and uncodified knowledge. Uncodified knowledge - the
most valuable type of knowledge - is found in the minds of practitioners and is
unarticulated, context-based, and experience-based.
 Technology is useful, but KM's focus is on people and processes. The most
valuable knowledge cannot effectively be (directly) transferred with technology;
it must be passed on directly from person to person.
 Focus on locating, understanding, enabling, and encouraging - by creating
environments, cultures, processes, etc. where knowledge is shared and created.
 Is largely about know-how, know-why, and know-who
 Is hard to copy - at least regarding the tacit elements. The connection to
experience and context makes tacit knowledge extremely difficult to copy. This is
why universities cannot produce seasoned practitioners - there are some things
(the most important things) that you simply cannot teach from a textbook (or
other codified source of information/explicit knowledge). These are learnt in the
field and understood on an intuitive level. You cannot easily copy or even
understand this intuition without the right experience, context, etc. - and it is this
intuition that represents the most valuable organizational knowledge.
Introducing Organizational Knowledge
In earlier section we identified the three different types of knowledge that can
exist in an organization. Now we will take a closer look at the scope
organizational knowledge and its significance to the knowledge management
(KM) process.

18
Organizational Knowledge Resources
Business knowledge can exist on several different levels:
Individual: Personal, often tacit knowledge/know-how of some sort. It can also
be explicit, but it must be individual in nature, e.g. a private notebook.
Groups/community: Knowledge held in groups but not shared with the rest of
the organization. Companies usually consist of communities (most often
informally created) which are linked together by common practice.
These communities of practice (Lave & Wenger 1991) may share common values,
language, procedures, know-how, etc. They are a source of learning and a
repository for tacit, explicit, and embedded knowledge.
Structural: Embedded knowledge found in processes, culture, etc. This may
be understood by many or very few members of the organization. E.g. the
knowledge embedded in the routines used by the army may not be known by
the soldiers who follow these routines. At times, structural knowledge may be
the remnant of past, otherwise long forgotten lessons, where the knowledge of
this lesson exists exclusively in the process itself.
Organizational: The definition of organizational knowledge is yet another
concept that has very little consensus within literature. Variations include the
extent to which the knowledge is spread within the organization, as well as the
actual make-up of this knowledge. Hatch (2010) defines it as: "When group
knowledge from several subunits or groups is combined and used to create new
knowledge, the resulting tacit and explicit knowledge can be called
organizational knowledge." Others present a broader perspective: "individual
knowledge, shared knowledge, and objectified knowledge are different aspects
or views of organizational knowledge" (Ekinge & Lennartsson 2000). As
always, texts emphasizing an IT based outlook once again offer shallower,
information-based definitions, e.g. Virvou & Nakamura 2008, "Information
internalized by means of research, study or experience that has value to the
organization".
Extra-organizational: Defined here as: Knowledge resources existing outside
the organization which could be used to enhance the performance of the
organization. They include explicit elements like publications, as well as tacit
elements found in communities of practice that span beyond the organization's
borders.

19
Implications for KM
In order to enhance organizational knowledge, KM must therefore be involved
across the entire knowledge spectrum. It must help knowledge development at
all levels and facilitate & promote its diffusion to individuals, groups, and/or
across the entire firm, in accordance with the organization's requirements. KM
must manage organizational knowledge storage and retrieval capabilities, and
create an environment conducive to learning and knowledge sharing. Similarly it
must be involved in tapping external sources of knowledge whenever these are
necessary for the development of the organizational knowledge resources.
To a large degree, KM is therefore dependent on the understanding and
management of organizational learning, organizational memory, knowledge
sharing, knowledge creation, and organizational culture.
The SECI Model and Knowledge Conversion
Arguably the most important contributor to this subject has been Ikujiro
Nonaka. He worked extensively with the concepts of explicit knowledge and tacit
knowledge, and drew attention to the way Western firms tend to focus too much
on the former (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1996). This sentiment has since been
echoed throughout organisational learning and knowledge management (KM)
literature (e.g. Cook & Brown 1999, Kreiner 1999, Tsoukas & Valdimirou
2001, etc.).
Nonaka and Takeuchi introduced the SECI model (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1996)
which has become the cornerstone of knowledge creation and transfer theory.
They proposed four ways that knowledge types can be combined and
converted, showing how knowledge is shared and created in the organization.
The model is based on the two types of knowledge outlined above.
 Socialization: Tacit to tacit. Knowledge is passed on through practice, guidance,
imitation, and observation.
 Externalization: Tacit to explicit. This is deemed as a particularly difficult and
often particularly important conversion mechanism. Tacit knowledge is codified
into documents, manuals, etc. so that it can spread more easily through the
organization. Since tacit knowledge can be virtually impossible to codify, the

20
extent of this knowledge conversion mechanism is debatable. The use of
metaphor is cited as an important externalization mechanism.
 Combination: Explicit to explicit. This is the simplest form. Codified knowledge
sources (e.g. documents) are combined to create new knowledge.
 Internalization: Explicit to tacit. As explicit sources are used and learned, the
knowledge is internalized, modifying the user's existing tacit knowledge.
The SECI Model Knowledge Creation Spiral
Below is graphical representation of this concept as presented in the SECI
model:
In this model, knowledge is continuously converted and created as users
practice and learn. The process should be seen as a continuous, dynamic, swirl
of knowledge.
A great deal of effort has been put into investigating its practical applicability
(with mixed results), but in recent years the applicability of the model has been
linked strongly to culture, both organizational and national. The issue is
whether culture is more than just an element in a KM model, i.e. culture-in-the-

21
model, but rather acts as a limiting factor for a model, i.e. culture-of-the-model
(Andreeva & Ikhilchik 2011).
Nonetheless, the SECI model remains at the core of knowledge conversion
theory within KM, and this almost universal attraction to the model may in
itself be an indication that some aspects of it appeal to virtually all cultures
(Andreeva & Ikhilchik 2011).
Organizational Memory and Knowledge
Repositories
Traditional memory is associated with the individual's ability to acquire, retain,
and retrieve knowledge. Within business this concept is extended beyond the
individual, and organizational memory therefore refers to the collective ability
to store and retrieve knowledge and information.
So how does one define organizational memory? Any definition would need to
span all the different repositories in which a company may store knowledge.
This includes the more formal records, as well as tacit and embedded
knowledge located in people, organizational culture, and processes.
Walsh and Ungson (1991) offer some deeper insight into the workings of
organizational memory. They look at how and organization's history can
influence current decision making. They examine how shared understandings
evolve, becoming part of an organizational whole which may remain constant
even after key individuals have left the firm. This is done through the formation
of collective interpretations regarding the outcome of decision making. The
information defining the decision's stimulus and response is stored in
information, and it affects present decisions when it is retrieved.
Walsh and Ungson (1991) define a number of stages in the organizational
memory process and outline five retention facilities:
 Acquisition: Organizational memory consists of the accumulated information
regarding past decisions. This information is not centrally stored, but rather it is
split across different retention facilities. Each time a decision is made and the
consequences are evaluated, some information is added to the organizational
memory.
 Retention: Past experiences can be retained in any of the five different
repositories:

22
o Individuals.
o Culture: The language and frameworks that exist within an organization
and form shared interpretations.
o Transformations: The procedures and formalized systems that the
organization employs. These systems reflect the firm's past experiences
and are repositories for embedded knowledge.
o Structures: These link the individual to other individuals and to the
environment. Social interaction is conditioned by mutual expectations
between individuals based on their roles within the organization. The
interaction sequences for a pattern over time and begin to extend to an
organizational level. This can take place both through formal and informal
structure and it constitutes a social memory which stores information
about an organization's perception of the environment.
o External activities: The surroundings of the organization where
knowledge and information can be stored. E.g. former employees,
government bodies, competitors, etc.
 Retrieval: This can either be controlled or automatic. The latter refers to the
intuitive and essentially effortless process of accessing organizational memory,
usually as part of an established sequence of action. Controlled refers to the
deliberate attempt to access stored knowledge.
As one can see, the three stages presented here are essential to the learning
process of the firm. Much like an individual, the firm must be able to access
and use past experiences so as to avoid repeating mistakes and to exploit
valuable knowledge. Unlike an individual however, OM is not centrally stored
and resides throughout the firm and even beyond it. The process of retrieving
knowledge/information will inevitably vary depending on the retention facility
that one is trying to access. For example, written documentation may be
accessed through IT while cultural memory is accessed through the
understanding and/or application of the norms and procedures of the working
environment.
A further distinction regarding the type of knowledge retained in the
organization is offered by Ramage and Reif (1996). They separate the
documented aspects from the more subtle knowledge that belongs to
individuals as a result of their role as members of the organization:
 Artifacts of Cooperation: These are the hard indicators which are visible and
examinable. They include products, records of collaboration, and ideas. The latter

23
refers to minutes of meetings, reports, FAQs, and other items that record common
knowledge. These are easily storable and presumably also more easily accessible.
 Knowledge of the Organization Qua Entity: This type of knowledge cannot be
stored in the same way as the artifacts of cooperation. It includes knowledge of
the political system, of the culture, and of how things are normally done within
the firm. It can include the knowledge of who is an expert, of where a particular
person is, and on who to contact for a specific problem.
This definition is useful as a way of understanding the knowledge categories
and the potential management challenge that organizational memory, and
ultimately knowledge management (KM) would pose.
Furthermore, as is the case with many KM related disciplines, one finds a
distinct difference in the way organizational memory is perceived between IT
practitioners and business theoreticians. In the words of Wellman (2009): "The
IT path emphasizes the acquisition and storage of organizational knowledge
including data warehousing, document management, and search tools. The
organization development (OD) path emphasizes tacit, coaching, social
interactions, and encouraging ad hoc knowledge exchange."
IT based models thus tend to focus on more concrete, definable memory and
less on people, culture, and informal structures. Essentially, they focus more on
artifacts of cooperation.
Since this site deals with organizational memory within the context of KM, it is
not necessary to arrive at a specific definition or model. Instead it is important
to understand the scope of organizational memory, its varied and often complex
retention facilities, and the types of knowledge available. In later sections, we
will investigate more closely the specific role that IT can have in supporting,
promoting, and enhancing organizational memory.
Introducing Organizational Learning
What is Organizational Learning
Learning is the way we create new knowledge and improve ourselves.
Although there is ample debate regarding the mechanisms and scope of
learning, in its simplest form this is no different for organizations. Botha et al.
describe the organizational learning process as follows:

24
As one can see organizational learning is based on applying knowledge for a
purpose and learning from the process and from the outcome. Brown and
Duguid (1991) describe organisational learning as "the bridge between working
and innovating." This once again links learning to action, but it also implies
useful improvement.
The implications to knowledge management are three-fold:
 One must understand how to create the ideal organizational learning environment
 One must be aware of how and why something has been learned.
 One must try to ensure that the learning that takes place is useful to the
organization
Organizational Learning Pitfalls
Senge (1990) argues that often it is failure that provides the richest learning
experience, which is something that organizations need to understand and use
more effectively. He criticizes the way we reward success and look down upon
failure as something that can be detrimental to the long term health of the
organization. Levitt and March (1996) further argue that success is ambiguous
and depends on how it is interpreted. This interpretation may not only vary
significantly between different groups within the organization, but may change
over time as success indicators and levels of aspiration change.

25
Levitt and March (1996) also discuss superstitious learning. This occurs when
positive or negative results are associated with the wrong actions. Success and
failure can both generate superstitious learning. If a firm does well, the routines
that they followed are linked to this success and are subsequently reinforced.
The opposite is true for failure. In such cases, the organization thinks that it has
learned when in fact it has not. Real organizational learning would have
resulted from the examination of the information generated from their actions
rather than from relatively arbitrary success or failure criteria.
Different Approaches to Organizational Learning
Generally, there are two approaches to organisational learning. The first view
looks at the firm as a whole and examines learning from a cognitive
perspective. In a way, the firm is treated like a large brain composed of the
individual members of the organization. The second view looks at learning as
community based, where the firm's practitioners create knowledge in their own
networks called communities of practice (Lave & Wenger 1991).
These views should be seen as complementary rather than contradictory. The
next two sub-sections will examine organizational learning theory from these
two perspectives.
Organizational Learning Theory from a
Company-WidePerspective
Two of the most noteworthy contributors to the field of organizational learning
theory have been Chris Argrys and Donald Schon. Organizational learning (OL),
according to Argrys & Schon is a product of organizational inquiry. This means
that whenever expected outcome differs from actual outcome, an individual (or
group) will engage in inquiry to understand and, if necessary, solve this
inconsistency. In the process of organizational inquiry, the individual will
interact with other members of the organization and learning will take place.
Learning is therefore a direct product of this interaction.
Argrys and Schon emphasize that this interaction often goes well beyond
defined organizational rules and procedures. Their approach to organizational

26
learning theory is based on the understanding of two (often conflicting) modes
of operation:
Espoused theory: This refers to the formalized part of the organization. Every
firm will tend to have various instructions regarding the way employees should
conduct themselves in order to carry out their jobs (e.g. problem solving).
These instructions are often specific and narrow in focus, confining the
individual to a set path. An example of espoused theory might be "if the
computer does not work, try rebooting it and then contact the IT department."
Theory-in-use: This is the actual way things are done. Individuals will rarely
follow espoused theory and will rely on interaction and brainstorming to solve
a problem. Theory in use refers to the loose, flowing, and social way that
employees solve problems and learn. An example of this might be the way
someone actually solves a problem with their computer by troubleshooting
solutions, researching on forums, asking co-workers for opinions, etc.
The fact that there is a mismatch between these two approaches is potentially
problematic if the company enforces its espoused theory. In order to create an
environment conducive to learning, firms are encouraged to accept theory in
use, and make it easy for the individual to interact with his working
environment in an undefined and unstructured way. Essentially they should
provide the right environment for organizational inquiry to take place,
unconstrained by formal procedures.
Levitt and March (1996) expand further on the dynamics of organizational
learning theory. Their view presents the organization as routine-based, history
dependent, and target oriented. While lessons from history are stored in the
organizational memory, the event itself is often lost. They note that past lessons
are captured by routines "in a way that makes the lessons, but not the history,
accessible to organizations and organizational members." The problem most
organizations face is that it is usually better to have the event rather than the
interpretation. However this is often too costly (both financially and time-wise)
to be feasible.
OL is transmitted through socialization, education, imitation and so on, and can
change over time as a result of interpretations of history.

27
Organizational Learning Theory: The Three Types of Learning
Argrys and Schon (1996) identify three levels of learning which may be present
in the organization:
 Single loop learning: Consists of one feedback loop when strategy is modified in
response to an unexpected result (error correction). E.g. when sales are down,
marketing managers inquire into the cause, and tweak the strategy to try to bring
sales back on track.
 Double loop learning: Learning that results in a change in theory-in-use. The
values, strategies, and assumptions that govern action are changed to create a
more efficient environment. In the above example, managers might rethink the
entire marketing or sales process so that there will be no (or fewer) such
fluctuations in the future.
 Deuteron learning: Learning about improving the learning system itself. This is
composed of structural and behavioral components which determine how learning
takes place. Essentially deuteron learning is therefore "learning how to learn."
This can be closely linked to Senge's concept of the learning organization,
particularly in regards to improving learning processes and
understanding/modifying mental models.
Effective learning must therefore include all three, continuously improving the
organization at all levels. However, while any organization will employ single
loop learning, double loop and particularly deuteron learning are a far greater
challenge.
Conclusion
From organizational learning theory we can infer the following issues which
may affect knowledge management and knowledge management systems:
 OL is dependent on allowing organizational inquiry to take place according to
theory-in-use, not espoused theory.
 OL is a complex mechanism, resulting often in the storage of interpretations of
past events, rather than the events themselves.
 OL can take place on three different levels. While single loop learning comes
natural to any individual/organization, special attention must be paid to the
double-loop and deuteron learning.

28
Organizational Learning and Communities of
Practice
What are Communities of Practice?
A community of practice is a term originally developed by Lave and Wenger
(1991). It describes a learning theory with a strong relationship to the social
construction of knowledge. The community of practice (sometimes incorrectly
referred to as "communities of practices") consists of members who interact
with each other for their pursuit of a common practice. It is therefore this
collective social practice that links individuals together across official
organizational boundaries and departments, and makes up the community.
It is important to note that these are not teams. A community of practice can be
defined as "a group of professionals informally bound to one another through
exposure to a common class of problems, common pursuit of solutions, and
thereby themselves embodying a store of knowledge" (Stewart 2001 in Botha et
al 2008).
Learning Within Communities of Practice
Learning is seen as deriving from the social process of becoming a practitioner,
as it gives the individual a social context of being an integrated part of a
community. The social construction of identity shapes each person's view and
interpretation of the world. Learning and the creation of new knowledge can
then take place within the context dependent forum of the community, and can
be shared through social practice.
Lave and Wenger (1991) introduce the concept of legitimate peripheral
learning (LPP). LPP links learning to participation within a community of
practice. The objective is not to acquire any specific knowledge, but instead to
be granted access to the community and its culture and language. As a
newcomer learns the formal and informal culture and values of the community,
he becomes a legitimate member. Essentially he moves form peripheral to full
participation.
Brown and Duguid (1991) further investigate organizational learning from a
community perspective. They refer to canonical and non-canonical practice-

29
which are concepts similar to espoused theory and theory-in-use described in the
previous section. Canonical practice refers to adherence to formal rules and
procedures, while non-canonical refers to the informal routines that dominate
day to day procedures. Brown and Duguid warn against strict canonical focus
as it inhibits the problem solving capabilities of the organization. They stress
that it is unstructured dialogue, particularly through storytelling, that leads to
innovation and problem solving.
Storytelling functions as a wisdom repository and is instrumental in the creation
of new knowledge. This is closely linked to Levitt and March's concept of
history dependent learning where the interpretations of events (rather than the
actual events) are remembered and passed on. It is also somewhat reminiscent
of Nonaka's externalization process, when tacit knowledge is made explicit often
through the use of metaphor.
The Implications to KM
Botha et al (2008) summarize the key factors regarding communities of
practice as follows:
 Learning is a social phenomenon
 Knowledge is integrated into the culture, values, and language of the community
 Learning and community membership are inseparable
 We learn by doing and therefore knowledge and practice are inseparable.
 Empowerment is key to learning: The best learning environments are created
when there are real consequences to the individual and his community of practice.
Management must understand the advantages, disadvantages, and limitations of
communities of practice. For example, because they are so loosely defined it
may be very hard to identify them when a problem needs to be solved- to
resolve this some companies today are mapping their communities of practice
(Botha 2008). Another issue could be the problem of transferring and
combining knowledge across the firm. Due to the close ties to "doing" as well
as the cultural elements, this may require innovative solutions- e.g. using
temporary cross functional project teams that can leverage knowledge from
different areas, apply it, learn, and the redistribute the new knowledge back into
the individual members' communities.
All this should underline the importance of recognizing and supporting
communities of practice. Knowledge management (KM) initiatives and systems
must therefore be supportive, non-disruptive, and must not enforce canonical
practice.

30
The Significance of Organizational Culture
In this article will look at organizational culture and its impact on KM
processes. The other article in this section examines leadership and the learning
organization, as outlined by Peter Senge.
What is Organizational Culture?
The social elements of knowledge that have been underlined in previous
sections are at least partially dependent on organizational and community
culture. Organizational culture determines values and beliefs which are an
integral part of what one chooses to see and absorb (Davenport & Prusak
2000). It includes a shared perception of reality, regarding how things are and
how things should be. Furthermore, community and group culture determine
the willingness and conditions for knowledge sharing with other members of the
organization. Knowledge, and knowledge sharing, is thus inseparable from
organisational culture.
Wellman (2009) essentially describes culture as "the way it is around here." To
illustrate the perseverance of organizational culture he presents an interesting
allegory which is summarize below:
Put five apes in a cage. Then dangle a banana from the ceiling of that cage and
place a ladder under it. Whenever an ape attempts to climb the ladder to reach
the banana, spray all of them with cold water. After a few times, the apes will
associate climbing the ladder with being sprayed with cold water. One can now
turn off the cold water.
Then, replace one of the original apes with a new one. This new ape will
undoubtedly try to get to the banana, but if he tries he will be attacked by the
others. He will have no idea why this is so, but will soon learn that he must not
climb the ladder. Next replace yet another ape. When he approaches the ladder
all the apes will attack him. One of these apes has no idea why he may not
climb the ladder, but he participates in the punishment enthusiastically. Soon
the new ape will also learn not to climb the ladder.
In this way, one can continue until all the original apes are replaced. At this
stage, none of them know why they must not climb the ladder, but none will do

31
so, and all will attack anyone that tries. All of this because "that's the way it
has always been around here."
Strange as it may seem, this kind of cultural learning can be identified time and
again in real world organizations. Wellman points out that at times this can be
beneficial and detrimental. Hard wiring a reaction can push the organization
into action quickly against a perceived threat. The problem is that this
"instinctive response may be inappropriate for the current environment but may
be triggered nonetheless" (Wellman 2009).
All in all, organizational culture can be split into levels (Schein 1992):
 Artifacts: These represent the visible elements such as processes, structures,
goals, climate, dress codes, furniture, etc. An outsider can see them but may not
understand why things are the way things are.
 Espoused values: The values espoused by the leaders. They most often are
grounded in shared assumptions (see below) of how the company should be run.
If there is a significant mismatch between the leadership espoused values and this
perception, the organization may be in trouble.
 Assumptions: These are the actual values of the culture. They refer to the (often
tacit) views of the world itself (e.g. human nature). Again, these assumptions
should need to correlate at least to a certain degree to the espoused leadership
values for the organization to function smoothly.
Organizational Culture and Knowledge Sharing
The importance of a knowledge sharing culture as an enabler for the transfer
and creation of knowledge is directly addressed by such authors as Bukowitz &
Williams (1999), Davenport and Prusak (2000), and Gamble and Blackwell
(2001). In order to make knowledge management initiatives work in practice,
the employees within the firm must be willing to share their knowledge with
others. Leaders must understand the culture both on an organisational and
community level. While culture often exists on an organizational level, each
community may have its own norms, perspectives, and collective
understandings. Their willingness to share and to seek knowledge will be
influenced by these collective views.
One major influence to a culture's knowledge sharing willingness is the issue of
reciprocity (Davenport & Prusak 2000). This refers to the individual's need to
perceive a current or future return on the knowledge he chooses to share. This

32
could be in the form of direct compensation of some kind; it could be
something intangible like enhancing the individual's reputation; but it can also
be the knowledge that the favor will be returned the next time he requires
assistance.
Finally, internal competition is yet another aspect of organizational culture that
may interfere with the knowledge sharing and knowledge creation process.
The Problems with Managing Organizational Culture
The problems with managing culture can be summed up as follows:
 Culture reaffirms itself by rejecting misfits and promoting those that adhere to the
norms of the organization (Gamble & Blackwell 2001).
 Culture often consists of learned responses that are hard wired into the
organization. The actual events that sparked this "lesson" may be long forgotten
(Wellman 2009). This is very similar to the concept of organizational
learning according to Levitt and March (1996) which indicates that organizations
are far more likely to remember interpretations of events rather than the event
itself.
 Culture contains falsehoods. Past lessons are applied often without understanding
them and their reasons for being.
Leadership and "The Learning Organization"
The term "learning organization", not to be confused with organizational learning,
was popularized by Peter Senge. It describes an organization with an ideal
learning environment, perfectly in tune with the organization's goals. Such an
organization is a place "where people continually expand their capacity to
create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of
thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people
are continually learning to see the whole (reality) together." (Senge 1992).
This subsection will focus largely on the work of Peter Senge, and it will serve
as a basis for understanding:

33
1. The ideal organizational environment for learning, knowledge management (KM),
innovation, etc, as described through the term "the learning organization".
2. The leadership qualities necessary for promoting and encouraging this ideal
environment.
The Learning Organization
According to Senge, the learning organization depends upon the mastery of five
dimensions:
 Systems thinking: The notion of treating the organization as a complex system
composed of smaller (often complex) systems. This requires an understanding of
the whole, as well as the components, not unlike the way a doctor should
understand the human body. Some of the key elements here are recognizing the
complexity of the organization and having a long-term focus. Senge advocates the
use of system maps that show how systems connect.
 Personal mastery: Senge describes this as a process where an individual strives
to enhance his vision and focus his energy, and to be in a constant state of
learning.
 Mental models: "Deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures
and images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action"
(Senge 1990). These must be recognized and challenged so as to allow for new
ideas and changes.
 Building shared vision: Shared vision is a powerful motivator. A leader's vision
does not necessarily become shared by those below him. The key here is to pass
on a picture of the future. To influence using dialogue, commitment, and
enthusiasm, rather than to try to dictate. Storytelling is one possible tool that can
be used here.
 Team learning: The state where team members think together to achieve
common goals. It builds on shared vision, adding the element of collaboration.
The Role of Leadership
Senge emphasized the role of the leader in the creation of this learning
organization. He defined three leadership roles (1990) that would reshape the
old-fashioned approach to being the boss. These are:

34
Leader as Designer: Senge likens this to being the designer of a ship rather
than its captain. He defined it in three ways:
 Creating a common vision with shared values and purpose.
 Determining the "policies, strategies, and structures that translate guiding ideas
into business decisions."
 Creating effective learning processes which will allow for continuous
improvement of the policies, stra0tegies, and structures.
Leader as Teacher: The leader here is seen as a coach that works with the
mental models present in the organization. He must understand the (usually
tacit) concepts of reality and restructure these views "to see beyond the
superficial conditions and events [and] into the underlying causes of the
problems."
Leader as Steward: This is the vaguest of the three and refers largely to the
attitude of the leader. He emphasizes the importance of a leader that feels he is
part of something greater; whose desire is first and foremost not to lead, but to
serve this greater purpose of building better organizations and reshaping the
way businesses operate.
The first two roles outlined by Senge shed a lot of light into the requirements of
effective KM and organizational learning.
Building Knowledge Management
Frameworks and Models
At this stage we have had a look at the components and definitions that related
to knowledge management (KM). This section deals with knowledge
management frameworks and models. The old saying that a picture paints a
thousand words is very much applicable in this case. A good model can
integrate various elements and show relationships in a way that is much harder
to do in writing.
But first, what are the components of a knowledge management framework? At
the most basic level, KM consists of the following steps:
 Identification of needs
 Identification of knowledge resources

35
 Acquisition, creation, or elimination of knowledge related
resources/processes/environments
 Retrieval, application and sharing of knowledge
 Storage of knowledge
It is important to note that none of these processes are independent and all of
them are affected by countless factors. This is why knowledge management
frameworks are typically very different and can be presented in a wide variety
of ways.
For instance, some models are sequential (as above), and seek to provide a
better overview at the expense of "realism". Other models display overlapping
processes in an attempt to simulate what actually occurs inside an organization.
The problem with the latter is that they are often hard to grasp and can only
convey limited information so as not to become incomprehensible. In the
following section I will provide examples of both.
Since KM is closely related or dependant on other disciplines (such as strategy,
information management, project management, etc.) and it is enabled by a wide
range of processes and systems, a model can become very complex indeed.
This is why there is no such thing as an integrated and fully detailed knowledge
management framework, i.e. one that captures all relevant aspects with
appropriate detail. Each model must choose its focus and origin, as well as its
limitations.
There are essentially three questions that a knowledge management framework
may choose to answer:
 What/How
 Why
 When
"What/how" refers to the actual processes of knowledge management.
"Why" refers to an indication of the reasons behind using one method or the
other.
"When" refers to the timing for using one method or another, and is very
closely related to "why".
The latter two questions are usually tackled in more strategic oriented models
that take a broader perspective. What/how is usually dealt with in process
oriented models that focus on an understanding of the tools available to the

36
manager. These kinds of models are generally more common particularly since
the role of knowledge management can be defined far more narrowly than I
have chosen to do on this site.
In the following section we will examine a few solid KM models dealing with all
the aspects we have discussed above. However, before we conclude, we will
present a very useful framework outlined by Botha et al (2008) titled the
"knowledge management broad categories".
You don't know Knowledge Discovery Explore, Research, Create
You know
Knowledge Repository
(Knowledge Base)
Knowledge Sharing and
Transfer
Knowledge you have Knowledge you don't have
Here, one can see the role of knowledge management from a broad perspective
(very similar to the one adopted on this site), i.e. which includes more than just
knowledge sharing/access/etc, but also new knowledge creation. These categories
provide a solid overview of the components of any knowledge management
framework focusing on the what/how question.

37
Three KM Models
The KM Process Framework by Bukowitz and Williams (1999)
This KM model depicts the process that defines the strategy for management to
build, divest, and enhance knowledge assets. It is a model that emphasizes the
"why" and "when" aspects. The strengths of this model rest on its strategic
focus, which essentially puts knowledge management action into context. It is
also worth noting that the notion of "divestment" is included - something which
is often missing from KM models.
KM initiatives are the result of the response to tactical and strategic changes
and needs. The model provides a great overview of the strategy behind KM but
it does not include any deeper insight into what initiatives are suitable in a
given instance.

38
The KM Matrix by Gamble and Blackwell (2001)
This KM model presents a general theoretical framework, as well as specific
guidelines for implementation..
The KM process is split into four stages. First management must locate the
sources of knowledge. Then they must organize this knowledge so as to assess
the firm's strengths and weaknesses and determine its relevance and reusability.
This is followed by socialization, where various techniques are used to help
share and disseminate it to whomever needs it in the organization. Finally, the
knowledge is internalized through use.
As all sequential models, the steps are not to be taken literally, but they do
provide an excellent overview of the role of the KM manager. However, one
limitation of this model is its focus. First of all, the overall strategic role outline
by Bukowitz and Williams is not included. Secondly, KM's role here is limited
to knowledge sharing, omitting the processes of knowledge acquisition/creation and
divestment. This is a perfectly legitimate approach to KM where the focus is on
the sharing and retrieval of existing knowledge, but it does not fulfill the scope
of the knowledge management definition outlined on this site.

39
The Knowledge Management Process Model by Botha et al
(2008)
This model attempts to offer a more realistic overview of the KM process. The
three broad categories overlap and interact with one another. Like Gamble &
Blackwell, the focus is on managerial initiatives. Here too the strategic focus
(the "when" and the "why" as opposed to the "what") is omitted. It is
noteworthy that this model does include the creation of new knowledge as a
specific KM initiative.
The model further shows which of the three categories are more people
oriented and which are more technology focused. Whether or not knowledge
sharing should be largely technology focused is certainly debatable. However,
for better or for worse, this is largely how organizations tend to approach the
issue i.e. as a technological rather than organizational and social challenge.

40
We have now looked at three models that take very different approaches to
KM. There is one other important aspect relating to KM that has not been
directly dealt with by these models. Referring now to the measurement of
effects that lets management know whether the implemented initiatives are
achieving the desired results. This is dependent upon data and information
management, but is paramount for future KM initiatives.
Based on these models, as well as on the topics discussed on this article so far,
will present an integrated knowledge management model.
An Integrated Knowledge Management Model
The integrated knowledge management model that have created combines the
main aspects of the topics discussed on this site into a model that focuses on the
strategic perspective. The integrated knowledge management model attempts to
link both process and strategy, while offering specific initiatives at different
stages. The model also outlines the relationship of information and information
management systems to knowledge management (KM).

41
The integrated knowledge management model draws upon elements presented
by Bukowitz & Williams, Gamble & Blackwell, Botha et al, and Nonaka &

42
Takeuchi. It also includes the concept of organizational memory as defined
earlier.
The dark gray elements represent KM initiatives; the yellow boxes represent
corporate strategy, while the teal boxes depict data and information systems
and repositories. The process is initiated from the tactical and strategic
considerations, illustrating the way KM strategy goes hand in hand with
corporate strategy. The non-bolded elements in the gray oval indicate the
knowledge related processes that go on within the organization as it operates,
and which management affects/enhances through its initiatives.
 Detect & Discover: Search for existing knowledge as well as hidden knowledge
within information and data.
 Organize & Assess: Organization and assessment of knowledge assets.
Knowledge is categorized, evaluated, and made easier to access (by providing
maps etc.).
 KM Tactical initiatives:
o Act - Reuse: If the firm can use existing knowledge to meet a tactical
opportunity or threat, the role of KM is to identify this knowledge and
enable it to be used. This means that if it is required by a different
person/group, then KM is responsible for making it available to all
relevant parties. Knowledge reuse thus combines the previous points on
detection and organization with a new aspect: knowledge sharing.
o Act - Create/acquire: If the right knowledge resources do not exist, the
firm may create or acquire them, assuming the right processes and systems
are in place to support this. For example, the knowledge may be acquired
from partners if the right relationships are in place. Knowledge
creation depends on the right internal environments that allow for
combination and conversion of knowledge assets.
o Failure to act: This is not really a KM initiative in itself, but it does have
some implications. In the event that a firm fails to act there is still a lesson
to be learned. Management must evaluate if this is something that needs to
be addressed in the future. This decision is fed back into the loop,
affecting future strategic choices.
 KM Strategic Initiatives:
o Invest: Support or implement. Here we refer to the organizational
structures, culture, knowledge retention, competencies, external network,
and systems that direct, affect, and/or enable the KM initiatives discussed

43
above in the long term. Strategic initiatives may, for example, involve
creating a knowledge sharing culture, restructuring the firm, establishing a
beneficial partnership, or implementing a new IT system. If the right
environment, system, etc. is already in place, management must make sure
to continuously support it. It is important to note that some of these do not
fall solely within KM, and they are all fields of study in their own right.
However in this case, we are interested solely in the way these broader
strategic initiatives shape the focus and direction of KM in the long term.
o Divest: When knowledge assets become obsolete they need to be
removed. KM is responsible for maintaining relevant knowledge assets.
The differentiation between tactical and strategic initiatives should not be seen
as categorical, and in reality projects and initiatives will often have mixed
goals. The integrated knowledge management model itself should be seen as
continuously looping, with new or modified knowledge and information being
fed into organizational memory and information repositories each time.
All processes are thus supported by information systems. They play an
important role in tracking progress and feeding that information back into the
system. This way, each time the integrated knowledge management model is
run, it is based on different information, understanding, knowledge, and
circumstances than the last time. As with all sequential models, none of this
should be taken absolutely literally.
Although this is called an "integrated" knowledge management model, it is not
intended to be all-encompassing. Since KM is such a broad discipline, one
could continue to add elements until the model was so complex that it had no
meaning.
Conclusion
In this section and the preceding ones, we have looked at various KM models
and presented my version of an integrated knowledge management model.
Although not intended to represent all possible areas, the integrated knowledge
management model does cover the major requirements of a model as defined
earlier. To recap, these are:
 Identification of needs
 Identification of knowledge resources

44
 Acquisition, creation, or elimination of knowledge related
resources/processes/environments
 Retrieval, application and sharing of knowledge
 Storage of knowledge
It also addresses (at least to some degree) the 3 main approaches to knowledge
management, also outlined in earlier sections, namely: what/how, why, when.
Finally, the model ties in information, strategy, and organizational memory,
building on the work of past authors.
The following section will examine knowledge management processes and
knowledge management strategy in-depth. The section will be modeled after
the categories presented in this integrated knowledge management model.
Knowledge Management Processes
This section will deal with the actual knowledge management processes. So far,
we have presented an introduction to knowledge management as well as several
frameworks. Now it is time to talk about the different processes and initiatives.
This section, as well as the subsequent one on knowledge management
strategy, will be structured according to the layout of the integrated knowledge
management model presented earlier.
Under the initiative referred to as "act", the integrated model outlines a series of
knowledge management processes. They will be used as headings for the
subsections presented here, and can be accessed through the menu on the left.
These are:
 Knowledge Discovery & Detection
 Knowledge Organization & Assessment
 Knowledge Sharing
 Knowledge Reuse
 Knowledge Creation
 Knowledge Acquisition
These form the backbone of knowledge management processes as they outline
all aspects involved in the actual management of knowledge.

45
At the end of the section on knowledge management strategy, a subsection
titled knowledge management best practices will summarize all the aspects
discussed thus far.
Knowledge Discovery and Detection
this subsection, we will examine the knowledge management (KM) initiatives
involved in knowledge discovery & detection.
This step deals with discovering the knowledge that a firm possesses all over
the organization, as well as the patterns in the information available that hide
previously undetected pockets of knowledge.
Once knowledge is created, it exists within the organization. However, before it
can be reused or shared it must be properly recognized and categorized. This
subsection deals with the former aspect, while the following subsection deals
with the latter.
 Explicit Knowledge: This is largely a process of sorting through documents and
other records, as well as discovering knowledge within existing data and
knowledge repositories. For the latter, IT can be used to uncover hidden
knowledge by looking at patterns and relationships within data and text. The main
tools/practices in this case include intelligence gathering, data mining (finding
patterns in large bodies of data and information), and text mining (text analysis to
search for knowledge, insights, etc.). Intelligence gathering is closely linked to
expert systems (Bali et al 2009) where the system tries to capture the knowledge
of an expert, though the extent to which they are competent for this task is
questionable (Botha et al 2008).
 Tacit knowledge: Discovering and detecting tacit knowledge is a lot more
complex and often it is up to the management in each firm to gain an
understanding of what their company's experts actually know. Since tacit
knowledge is considered as the most valuable in relation to sustained competitive
advantage, this is a crucial step, a step that often simply involves observation and
awareness. There are several qualitative and quantitative tools/practices that can
help in the process; these include knowledge surveys, questionnaires, individual
interviews, group interviews, focus groups, network analysis, and observation. IT
can be used to help identify experts and communities. Groupware systems and
other social/professional networks as well as expert finders can point to people
who are considered experts, and may also give an indication of the knowledge
these people/groups possess.

46
 Embedded knowledge: This implies an examination and identification of the
knowledge trapped inside organizational routines, processes, products etc., which
has not already been made explicit. Management must essentially ask "why do we
do something a certain way?" This type of knowledge discovery involves
observation and analysis, and the use of reverse engineering and modeling tools.
It is important to note that the sources of knowledge that a firm has access to
may extend well outside the organization. This type of knowledge, which was
introduced in the previous subsection on "Understanding Organizational
Knowledge" is called extra-organizational knowledge. This can exist in both
formal and informal settings. The former refers to management driven
initiatives like partnerships, while the latter refers to the informal networks of
individual members. We are interested in the former, which can be located and
managed at least to some degree. Gamble and Blackwell identify several such
sources:
 Alliances
 Suppliers
 Customers
At this stage, we are still only discussing knowledge discovery and detection,
so these relationships will not be explored in detail (see knowledge
acquisition and external knowledge networks for more). Knowledge from alliances
and partners can exist in joint projects, shared knowledge/experts operational
data and so on. Suppliers and customers can provide product feedback, trends,
developments etc. Within their respective limitations, similar tools as above can
be used to identify the knowledge and/or knowledge sources.
IT can be used in this context both as a means of feedback, communication, and
cooperation between partners, and also as a way to gather, analyze, and "mine"
data and information.
Facilitating Knowledge Discovery and Detection
Useful to this process is the adoption of practices that make knowledge easier
to detect. For example, teams could be asked to document aspects of their work
with a certain language and presentation standard. Generalists could be used to
help organize this process, as well as to document the expertise of the
individual team members (which can be used later to promote tacit knowledge
socialization). A rundown of how management should prepare knowledge in

47
specific situations is presented in the final segment of the Knowledge Reuse
subsection.
Knowledge Organization & Assessment
The idea that firms should categorize their knowledge assets is not a new one
(Horvath 2000, Bukowitz & Williams 1999). In order to determine what
resources they have at their disposal and to pin point strengths and weaknesses,
management needs to organize the knowledge into something manageable.
Knowledge organization involves activities that "classify, map, index, and
categorize knowledge for navigation, storage, and retrieval" (Botha et al. 2008).
Markus (2001) assigns the role of preparing, sanitizing, and organizing this
knowledge to a "knowledge intermediary". This may be a knowledge manager
or it may also be the actual producer of the knowledge. The point is, that in
order for knowledge to be shared (either for reuse in a business situation or as a
tool for knowledge creation), it must be prepared in such a way that it can be
identified, retrieved, and understood by the knowledge user.
Explicit knowledge organization: IT is generally encouraged as a means of
organizing and retrieving (Gamble and Blackwell 2001, Botha et al 2008, etc.).
IT based systems use taxonomies and ontologies to classify and organize
knowledge and information (Bali et al 2009). These are categorization methods
that create a logical, hierarchical knowledge map, allowing the user to navigate
by category. However, taxonomies are very expensive to create (Botha et al
2008). It is relevant to note here that although explicit knowledge is not
considered as valuable as tacit knowledge, due to its sheer volume, an effective
method of classification and retrieval is often essential. Other tools include
libraries and data marts (Gamble & Blackwell 2001).
Tacit knowledge organization: Use of focus groups, expertise guides, social
network analysis, and knowledge coordinators (Gamble and Blackwell 2001
and Liebowitz 2009). The role of the latter is to understand in which context
the tacit knowledge was created. Expertise locators, such as corporate yellow
pages, social network analysis and other knowledge maps can be used to
pinpoint the location and categorize the valuable expertise of tacit knowledge
sources (a.k.a. experts). They can also shed light into how widespread certain

48
tacit knowledge is, enabling the firm to plan ahead for the retirement of key
employees.
Embedded knowledge organization: Job/workplace design, workflow analyses
and performance measures (Gamble & Blackwell 2001) can be used to
organize and assess embedded knowledge. Mapping is also useful here, and
knowledge maps outlining embedded knowledge can be formulated under the
guidance of knowledge brokers (Horvath 2000).
Liebowitz emphasizes the determination of how important certain knowledge is
to the organization. The two key factors to examine are knowledge severity or
criticality and knowledge availability. The more critical the knowledge and the
more unavailable it is (e.g. if only one or a few experts exist and/or if they are
near retirement age), the more attention this knowledge deserves.
Knowledge organization and assessment can seem like an expensive endeavor,
particularly since the return on investment is indirect. In other words, there is
little visible gain from meticulously classifying and organizing knowledge
assets. However, it is an important step in the knowledge management and reuse
process. As discussed in the subsection on knowledge detection, the organization
can put systems in place that facilitate the detection and organization of
knowledge. These depend on the situation within which the knowledge was
created, and the possible recipients. A closer look at this specific aspect is
presented in the recommendations segment of the knowledge reuse subsection.
Knowledge Sharing
As stated earlier, knowledge management is fundamentally about making the
right knowledge or the right knowledge sources (including people) available to
the right people at the right time. Knowledge sharing is therefore perhaps the
single most important aspect in this process, since the vast majority of KM
initiatives depend upon it. Knowledge sharing can be described as either push
or pull. The latter is when the knowledge worker actively seeks out knowledge
sources (e.g. library search, seeking out an expert, collaborating with a
coworker etc.), while knowledge push is when knowledge is "pushed onto" the
user (e.g. newsletters, unsolicited publications, etc.).

49
Knowledge sharing depends on the habit and willingness of the knowledge
worker to seek out and/or be receptive to these knowledge sources. The right
culture, incentives, and so on must therefore be present.
In the rest of this section we will discuss the concepts of knowledge sharing
according to the different types of knowledge. The role of IT will also be
explored and discussed from a general perspective.
Explicit Knowledge and Knowledge Sharing
Successful explicit knowledge sharing is determined by the following criteria
(Bukowitz and Williams 1999):
 Articulation: The ability of the user to define what he needs.
 Awareness: Awareness of the knowledge available. The provider is encouraged
to make use of directories, maps, corporate yellow pages, etc.
 Access: Access to the knowledge.
 Guidance: Knowledge managers are often considered key in the build-up of a
knowledge sharing system (Davenport & Prusak 2000, Gamble & Blackwell
2001). They must help define the areas of expertise of the members of the firm,
guide their contributions, assist users, and be responsible for the language used in
publications and other communication material. This is so as to avoid an
information/knowledge overload.
 Completeness: Access to both centrally managed and self-published knowledge.
The former is often more scrutinized but takes longer to publish and is not as
hands-on (and potentially relevant). Self-published information on the other hand
runs the risk of not being as reliable.
IT systems have proved extremely useful in aiding or performing many of these
functions.
Explicit Knowledge Sharing and IT
IT is useful in most stages of the knowledge sharing process, and it is used for
content management as well as data and text mining (looking for hidden
knowledge, relationships, etc. within data and documents).

50
Content management systems are used to update, distribute, tag, and otherwise
manage content. They may include a wide range of functions, including web
content management and document management systems. They may be used to
(base on Wikipedia entry):
 Import and create documents and multimedia material.
 Identify key users and their roles.
 Assign roles and responsibilities to different instances of content categories or
types.
 Define workflow tasks. Content managers can be alerted when changes in content
are made.
 Track and manage multiple versions of content.
 Publish content to a repository to support access. Increasingly, the repository is a
part of the system, incorporating search and retrieval.
Document management systems use numerous advanced indexing, searching,
and retrieval mechanisms (e.g. using Meta data or content from the actual
document) to facilitate explicit knowledge sharing.
To take advantage of all of these functions, it is a foregone conclusion that the
system was chosen and implemented appropriately. This aspect is discussed in
the section on knowledge management systems.
All in all, IT is a very useful tool in the management of explicit knowledge and
information. This is not to say that humans no longer play a part. They certainly
do, and knowledge and content managers are instrumental in ensuring that the
knowledge is relevant, up to date, and presented correctly.
Can Explicit Knowledge Sharing Systems Yield Competitive
Advantage?
For the actual storage and retrieval, there is very little disagreement on the
value of IT as a means of sharing, sorting, and accessing explicit knowledge.
Where one does find disagreement is on the value placed on this function. KM
and organizational learning theorists have sometimes downplayed the value of
explicit knowledge and focused largely on tacit knowledge (Brown & Duguid,
Cook & Brown 1999). However, it has also been argued that in a world where
we have an overflow of explicit knowledge and information, the ability to
manage it, and thus to provide continuous streams of relevant knowledge and
information, can be a source of competitive advantage in itself (Maier 2002,

51
Botha et al 2008). The latter view appears to be gaining support, although one
important point should be considered: explicit knowledge management systems
are quite transparent and therefore fairly easy to replicate. This means that they
cannot be the source of sustained long term competitive advantage (Jackson et
al 2003).
All this being said, in most cases, implementing a solid system that enables
explicit knowledge sharing is crucial for the following reasons:
 Not doing so would almost certainly become a source of competitive
disadvantage (for lack of a better word).
 They may well provide a short term advantage, which may be extended through
continuous improvements and new technologies.
 With proper care, such systems will also play a limited role in the sharing of tacit
knowledge, as will be discussed in the next section.
Tacit Knowledge Sharing
Sharing tacit knowledge requires socialization. This can take many different
forms. Davenport & Prusak (2000) outline a few relevant factors:
 Informal networks, which involve the day to day interaction between people
within work environments are considered very important.
 Unlike the formalized structure of the firm, these networks span functions and
hierarchies. They are therefore difficult to identify and monitor.
 Management should support these networks by providing the means for
communication. Japanese firms have created talk rooms where employees can
engage in unstructured, unmonitored discussions. A specific location is useful but
not mandatory - this process also occurs in cafeterias etc. Management must
simply provide the means for employees to foster informal networks and "trade"
tacit knowledge.
 Management must also understand the value of chaos. This refers to the value of
unstructured work practices that encourage experimentation and social
interaction. Within a more chaotic environment, individuals are given the freedom
to solve problems creatively and, in so doing, must tap into and evolve their social
networks. This is closely linked to the notion of theory in use vs espoused theory.
The value of less structured work environments is also well known within
innovation management.

52
Codification of tacit knowledge is difficult and sometimes outright impossible.
There will often be a resulting knowledge loss (Bukowitz and Williams 1999,
Davenport & Prusak 2000). Often, it is much more reasonable to simply
externalize the sources of tacit knowledge rather than the knowledge itself
(Davenport & Prusak 2000). This means that often it is better for experts to
externalize what they know rather than how they know it. The main role of KM
then becomes making sure that experts can be found so that tacit knowledge
can be passed on through practice, mentoring, and networking (socialization),
and that the firm supports and encourages the networking that is necessary for
these functions to occur.
To share tacit knowledge requires a culture conducive to this type of sharing.
Furthermore, knowledge managers (generalists that understand the types of
knowledge that exist in the communities) must be used to locate and translate
knowledge elements, thus facilitating their integration into other communities.
This endeavor is very much about people and managing organizational culture
change.
Tacit Knowledge Sharing and IT
IT oriented approaches often place undue focus on externalization (Swan et al
2002). Due to the context specific nature of tacit knowledge, and due to the fact
that much of it cannot be codified, externalization should sometimes not be
attempted. In this context, IT is perhaps best as an expertise locater.
However, in some cases IT can be of some limited use as a forum for
externalization of tacit knowledge. For example, groupware systems that support
brainstorming can help in the codification process (Botha et al 2008). Online
discussion databases and forums can also be sources of externalized knowledge
(Botha et al 2008), although the richness of this knowledge should be
questioned.
While IT is crucial for information management, it is important not to confuse
information with knowledge. Using IT to move tacit knowledge is difficult
since knowledge represents the shared understanding and the sense making that
is deeply rooted in the social practice of the community. The focus for the
successful sharing of tacit knowledge must be on social interaction, problem
solving, mentoring, and teaching.

53
IT's contribution to OL therefore depends on its fit to the social context of the
communities. Technology must not be seen as the superior solution and should
not be used to structure organizational practice (at most to supplement it).
There is also the danger that IT may limit the participation of some members of
the community. It may make it more difficult for individuals to become
accepted members of the community by limiting socialization channels. The
challenge is to extend the reach of communication without sacrificing
reciprocity in regards to knowledge sharing or socialization.
The management of tacit knowledge has traditionally been a pitfall of IT driven
KM, and something that designers and manufacturers have not been adequately
versed in - particularly in the 1990s. The current situation still sees the subject
divided between those who take a technologically-centric view and those who
take a people-oriented approach (Bali et al 2009). Increasingly however, the
limitations of IT are being recognized in this context, as well as in related
disciplines such as knowledge creation.
The role of IT for tacit knowledge sharing can thus be summarized as follows:
 As an expert finder: To locate the source of the tacit knowledge through systems
like corporate yellow pages.
 As providing limited support in the socialization of tacit knowledge: If IT
systems support varied, formal and informal forms of communication then they
can help tacit knowledge sharing by supporting teams, projects, communities, etc.
Functions like being able to attach notes to documents, or video conferencing can
support work environments over long distances to some degree. It is very
important to realize though that if one replaces existing socialization functions
with IT, this can backfire and become outright detrimental to the firm's efforts.
 As providing limited support in the externalization of tacit
knowledge: Through groupware applications that support the codification
process, discussion forums etc. However, not only is this aspect limited, but
externalization itself is only rarely feasible.
Embedded Knowledge Sharing
As a reminder, embedded knowledge refers to knowledge locked in products,
processes, routines, etc.
Embedded knowledge can be shared when the knowledge from one product or
process is incorporated into another. Management must understand what

54
knowledge is locked within those sources, and they must transfer the relevant
parts into a different system. To do this, Gamble and Blackwell advocate the
use of:
 Scenario planning: The practice of creating a set of scenarios and hypothesizing
how they might unfold by drawing upon the perspectives of experts, the firm's
knowledge asserts, and so on.
 After action reviews: "is a structured review or de-brief process for
analyzing what happened, why it happened, and how it can be done better"
(Wikipedia).
 Management training.
Embedded knowledge could theoretically be transferred as is, simply by testing
the effects of procedures or design features transferred from one area to
another. However, often it will have to be made explicit, or partially explicit, at
least to the responsible managers. This way they can hypothesize the effects
that embedded knowledge has in a given situation and use simulation and
experimentation to implement it in a new area.
Beyond the knowledge mapping functions described in the subsection on
organization and assessment, IT's use is usually more indirect. It can be used as
support in the design of simulations, experiments, and product design, and it
can also provide modeling tools used in reverse engineering of products.
However, these tools are not typically considered as being knowledge
management systems and are thus beyond the scope of this website.
One direct role of IT systems is as an embedded knowledge repository where
procedures, guidelines, etc are stored and retrieved. If implemented properly,
with the IT system complementing rather than disrupting existing processes and
culture, then it can support practices and routines, and eventually become an
embedded knowledge artifact in its own right.
Conclusion
To facilitate knowledge sharing, KM must understand the requirements of the
users, as well as the complexities and potential problems with managing
knowledge and knowledge sources. Very broadly speaking, management must
therefore implement the right processes, frameworks, and systems that enable

55
knowledge sharing. They must also foster a knowledge sharing culture that
ensures that these investments are fully utilized.
For explicit knowledge, seven issues have been identified that KM must
consider, these are: articulation, awareness, access, guidance, completeness. IT
has been identified as a key component of this type of knowledge sharing,
facilitating and lowering the cost of the storage, access, retrieval, and variety of
explicit knowledge.
Tacit knowledge sharing depends on socialization and practice. KM must offer
the means for this to take place by providing the right forums (primarily
physical, but also virtual), supporting networks and communities, and accepting
unstructured work environments. Generalists, known as knowledge managers,
should be used to gain an understanding of the location of knowledge sources
and to bridge the gaps between communities and networks.
In order to support the transfer of tacit knowledge, KMS must support the
socialization functions, while at the same time not enforcing strict managerial
practices/routines/hierarchies/etc. One of its best roles is as an expert finder,
although it can also help in the direct transfer of tacit knowledge through the
support of rich and varied methods of communication, which preferably
include informal communication channels.
Embedded knowledge sharing is a process whereby embedded knowledge is
passed on from one product, routine, or process to another. Several tools have
been described that can help management understand the effects of embedded
knowledge and help in its transfer. These were: scenario planning, after action
reviews, and management training.

56
Managing Knowledge Reuse
In previous subsections, we have identified how knowledge is identified,
organized, and shared. These issues were discussed from a broad perspective,
relevant to both knowledge reuse and knowledge creation (as will be discussed
later). In this subsection, I will look at the specific situations involved in
knowledge reuse and discuss the different managerial challenges. At the end I
summarize the findings and present recommendations.
In this subsection we will focus primarily on the explicit and tacit
knowledge distinctions as defined in the subsection on the different types of
knowledge.
Three Roles for Knowledge Reuse
First, a quick overview of the knowledge reuse process, and some useful
definitions. Markus (2001) identifies three roles in the reuse of knowledge:
 Knowledge producer: The original creator of the knowledge.
 Knowledge intermediary: The one who packages and prepares the knowledge so
that it may be stored, retrieved, and shared. This may involve any number of
functions such as indexing, categorization, standardizing, publishing, mapping,
etc.
 Knowledge consumer: The person who is the recipient and user of the
knowledge in question.
As Markus points out, these three functions may involve different people or
they may all be done by the same person. e.g. knowledge reuse by a person
accessing the documented (explicit) research of someone in a different part of
the organization requires that the producer created the documents, that either he
or someone else prepared them so that they may be understood and retrieved,
and that the knowledge consumer retrieved and used it. In other words the roles
were filled by two or three people and the process included explicit
knowledge capture and sharing across the organization. Alternatively, in another
scenario someone may want to use their own documentation later on. This

57
process involves just one person in all three roles and the only function
performed is capturing the knowledge in a way that will allow retrieval at a
later point.
We would add that for tacit knowledge, the role of intermediary could be
defined as the expert himself - since he must present the knowledge (through
practice and socialization) in a useable way to his student, team mates, etc. It
may also fall upon the person who identified this expert and made it possible
for others to reach him, e.g. if a knowledge manager creates an expert profile
for publishing on the intranet; this way, the knowledge manager creates an
explicit account of what the expert knows rather than promoting externalization
of the knowledge itself.
To sum up, someone has to produce the knowledge, someone has to make this
knowledge available, and someone has to search for and use this knowledge.
This implies not just the capability, but also the willingness to share, to search,
and to retrieve.
Knowledge Reuse Situations
Fruchter and Demian (2002) identify two very general types of knowledge
reuse:
 Internal: Where the knowledge producer uses his own knowledge at some future
point.
 External: Where the knowledge consumer uses someone else's knowledge. The
authors point out that the latter has a much higher failure rate for reasons that
include the loss of contextual knowledge and information, and knowledge that is
not properly captured due to the costs involved. A more detailed framework is
offered by Markus (2001) who identifies four knowledge reuse situations. These
are defined below, drawing also upon the work of Timbrell and Jewels (2002)
who found support for Markus's work through their study. The recommendation
segments also draw upon some of the issues discussed under knowledge-sharing,
as well as some of my own insights.
 Shared Work Producers: People working in teams producing knowledge for
their own reuse. They are closest in knowledge-distance. They generally will have
a good understanding of what they need and where to find it (including both
documents and experts). Knowledge reuse will however be harder within cross
functional teams. Markus also warns that the rationale for the decision making is

58
often forgotten. They need knowledge about how/what/why it was done, what
improvements could be made.
 Shared Work Practitioners: People who perform similar work in different
settings (e.g. same position in different locations). Knowledge is produced for
someone else's use. Defining the knowledge needs is usually easy, as is locating
the right experts within the network (which is used frequently). Basically, they
need to know how to do something or why something works.
 Expertise-Seeking Novices: People who seek out knowledge they do not
normally work with. They are furthest in knowledge-distance. They have great
difficulty "defining the questions, locating and judging, the quality of the
knowledge sources, and applying the expertise." (Timbrell & Jewels 2002).
 Miners Secondary Knowledge: People who try to find knowledge in work
produced in different contexts, so as to apply it in other situations. The knowledge
and context of the consumer may be very different to the producer. The main
challenge here is defining the question. Often requires complex search algorithms
which are hard to create (such as those used within text and data mining).
Problems and Recommendations for Managing knowledge
reuse
In the article above, I presented several situations of knowledge re-use that
have different advantages, disadvantages, and requirements. I also discussed
some general issues that affect the process of reuse.
Drawing upon the work thus far, and bringing in the knowledge sharing issues
discussed in the previous subsection, the managerial issues regarding
knowledge reuse can be summarized as follows:
 Cost: The time and money necessary to organize, package, store, and retrieve the
knowledge. This is particularly true in the cases when tacit knowledge is
externalized into explicit knowledge such as documents. A great deal of cost is
associated with capturing context (something that is often impossible) and with
preparing the document for retrieval. Even with IT, the latter includes
categorization, summarizing, use of metadata, etc. Content management is also
necessary to check language and presentation, and also to keep the repositories
relevant and up to date. The cost associated with the re-use of tacit knowledge
involves setting up the right circumstances for it to take place e.g.
teams, mentoring, teaching, projects, etc, as well as the systems that support
communication and expertise location.

59
 Specific requirements of specific individuals and groups: Presented in
Markus's four roles above. Management must be aware of the different
requirements, and support each situation accordingly. Articles on knowledge
reuse are still dominated by IT theories which focus largely on organizing,
presenting, and retrieving explicit knowledge. Again, I draw the reader's attention
to the importance of socialization and informal networks, which serve as the
backbone of the sharing of rich tacit knowledge (expertise). Below I present the
recommendations for each re-use category, drawing again on the work of Markus
(2001), on the knowledge sharing principles outlined in the previous subsection,
as well as some of my own insights.
 Shared work producers, recommendations: For explicit knowledge, try to
maintain context; pay attention to indexing, categorization, and other search
related functions; document rationale behind the knowledge. For cross-functional
teams assign a generalist to bring the knowledge together and to ensure
consistency. For tacit knowledge support communication and informal networks
(e.g. between former team members). For cross-functional teams, use the
generalist to help define non-codified tacit expertise with individual team
members. Record this expertise together with the individual team roles.
 Shared work practitioners, recommendations: If explicit, decontextualize
knowledge and provide all relevant information regarding indexing, searching,
and relevance. Use knowledge push to make potential recipients aware of it. For
tacit knowledge, create the right situations for socialization, e.g. teamwork,
projects, informal communication, etc. Use IT as an expertise locater and
communication support, but understand its limitations in tacit knowledge transfer.
 Expertise-seeking novices, recommendations: For explicit knowledge
decontextualize knowledge but support recontextualization in the context used by
the novice. For both knowledge types, try to codify the contents of the knowledge
source e.g. by defining the content of a document or the knowledge of an expert.
Provide awareness training. For tacit knowledge do as for shared work
practitioners.
 Miners Secondary Knowledge: Record context information such as metadata.
Provide relevant training regarding knowledge, data, and information repositories,
as well as analysis and search techniques. Implement IT systems that match the
needs of the consumer e.g. data mining and analysis tools, text mining tools, etc.
 Willingness: Both to package knowledge on the part of the producer or to seek it
out on the part of the consumer. This brings us back to issues like culture, which
promote knowledge reuse and knowledge sharing. The cultural aspect will be
dealt with in the section on organizational culture change.

60
Knowledge Creation
The ability to create new knowledge is often at the heart of the organization's
competitive advantage. Sometimes this issue is not treated as part of knowledge
management since it borders and overlaps with innovation management
(Wellman 2009). Since I chose a broader knowledge management definition, I very
much regard it as a part of the process, and I will refer (albeit superficially) to
some theories that pertain to innovation.
Knowledge creation according to the Nonaka's SECI model is about continuous
transfer, combination, and conversion of the different types of knowledge, as users
practice, interact, and learn. Cook and Brown (1999) distinguish between
knowledge and knowing, and suggest that knowledge creation is a product of
the interplay between them. The shift in condition between the possession of
knowledge and the act of knowing - something that comes about through
practice, action, and interaction- is the driving force in the creation of new
knowledge. Furthermore, in order for this interplay to be most fruitful, it is
important to support unstructured work environments in areas where creativity
and innovation are important.
Knowledge sharing and knowledge creation thus go hand in hand. Knowledge
is created through practice, collaboration, interaction, and education, as the
different knowledge types are shared and converted. Beyond this, knowledge
creation is also supported by relevant information and data which can improve
decisions and serve as building blocks in the creation of new knowledge.
Managing Knowledge Creation
The role of management in the knowledge creation process is thus as follows:
1. To enable and encourage knowledge sharing: On the tactical side, as described in
the previous subsection, management must understand where and in what forms
knowledge exists. They must then provide the right forums for knowledge to be shared.
For tacit knowledge this implies a particular emphasis on informal communication, while
for explicit knowledge this implies a focus on a variety of IT systems. On the strategic
side (to be discussed in-depth later), management must create/design the right
environments, processes, and systems that provide the means and willingness for it to
take place.

61
2. To create a suitable work environment: This includes the notion of creating
interplay between knowledge and knowing. It implies offering relevant courses and
education, but most importantly allowing new knowledge to be created through
interaction, practice, and experimentation. Botha et al (2008) point to the importance of
shared experiences in the knowledge creation process when dealing with tacit knowledge,
and the need for an environment where these can be formed. March (1988) discusses how
our cultural norms often stifle innovation and new knowledge creation. He advocates
environments where we recognize that goals can be created through action,
where intuition is accepted and valued, and where experience is nothing more than a
theory. These concepts bring us back to the concept of theory in use (referring to work
environments that do not follow strict, "official" rules and procedures), and the
acceptance and support of environments that allow brainstorming, trial and error, and
unstructured interaction.
o As an example, from innovation theory, one can refer to the practice of
establishing teams to solve problems, unhindered by the bureaucracy that
may exist in the firm. Peters (1988) refers to the value of chaos and the
advantage of smaller, fast-acting teams. One common alternative is the use
of cross-functional project teams. These are usually a group of experts
from different parts of the organization, led by a "generalist" project
leader. If these teams are allowed the freedom to experiment and work in
an autonomous, or virtually autonomous environment, it can be a great
catalyst for innovation and new knowledge creation. Then, once the task is
complete, the members return to their role in the organization, helping to
spread this knowledge back into their own community of practice. The
project team itself can also facilitate the creation of bridges
between communities of practice, and at times may even serve as a way to
extend them. Variations of this concept can be seen in several places in
innovation theory, notably in Nonaka and Takeuchi's self-organizing
project teams in the hypertext organization.
3. To provide systems that support the work process: These can be groupware systems
that facilitate communication or brainstorming. However, they must not interfere with
creative processes or communities of practice, or enforce rigid organizational practices
(espoused theory).
4. To provide knowledge workers with timely, relevant information and data. In
today's fast paced environment this is virtually synonymous with the implementation of
IT systems which can store, retrieve, organize, and present information and data in a
helpful way.

62
IT and Knowledge Creation
The use of IT is very much the same as it is for knowledge sharing, allowing
for some degree of support in the transfer of all knowledge types. One
important aspect is that it must support, and not interfere with, informal
collaboration. For example, groupware systems can be used to enhance
communication between communities or teams, particularly if they support
varied (e.g. video, audio, text - according to the needs of the individual firm),
informal communication.
Apart from this, IT also has an important role through information
management, by providing access to data and information, and allowing the
manager to perform in-depth analyses. More than that, IT systems can also be
programmed to spot trends in data and information and present that to the
manager. This essentially enables the manager to make better decisions and
aids knowledge creation by providing some of the building blocks for new
knowledge.
IT tools can also be used in the innovation process (e.g. tools used in the actual
product design), but these are outside the scope of knowledge management.
Conclusion
In conclusion, knowledge creation depends upon the mechanisms described in
the subsection on knowledge sharing, combined with the ability to put
knowledge into practice in an environment which supports interaction and
experimentation. The creative process is a delicate one, and it is easily ruined
by strict adherence to rules and regulations, or by bureaucracy. Similarly IT
systems must be implemented with care (as discussed above), and not attempt
to replace processes vital to knowledge creation.
Knowledge Acquisition
Knowledge acquisition refers to the knowledge that a firm can try to obtain
from external sources. External knowledge sources are important and one
should therefore take a holistic view of the value chain (Gamble & Blackwell

63
2001). Sources include suppliers, competitors, partners/alliances, customers,
and external experts. Communities of practice can extend well outside the firm.
Knowledge acquisition is a topic that could fill books and extend well outside
the knowledge management (KM) focus. For this reason, detailed descriptions
of how to manage external relationships are beyond the scope of this topic.
However, since KM is inextricably linked to corporate strategy, an overview of
the options available to the organization will be helpful to understanding the
full potential KM role.
This subsection will discuss the knowledge available from the different
sources, and the managerial issues that must be considered. In the subsection
titled "External Knowledge Network", we will tie this back to the overall strategic
level and look at the process behind external knowledge acquisition.
The main sources are of knowledge acquisition are:
Customers
Customer knowledge comes in different forms. Gerbert et al (2002) identify
three different types:
 Knowledge for customer: The knowledge that the customers can gain in order to
satisfy their knowledge needs.. It can include product, market, and supplier
knowledge. It can be sourced from our company or from other external sources
like other customers and competitors (Zanjani 2008).
 Knowledge about customer: The kind of knowledge that enables us to know the
customer better, to understand their motivations, and to address them better.
Includes requirements, expectations, and purchasing activities.
 Knowledge from customer: The kind of knowledge that deals with products,
suppliers, and markets. It can be used to improve our products and services.
These three categories apply to actual knowledge acquisition as well as to data
and information, which can be processed and used to create knowledge
(Zanjani 2008); e.g. data on purchasing habits could be analyzed to create
knowledge that could improve marketing or design decisions.
Knowledge sharing is thus important, although it may take many different
forms depending on the area of business. KM is particularly important for B2B
relationships where the buyers are usually more prominent (i.e. either buy

64
many products or buy expensive products) and the products are more likely to
be customized to the needs of the customer. This can, and often should result in
a closer relationship with more detailed communication and feedback, where
the customers are involved as partners when discussing modifications and
improvements (Gerbert et al 2002).
Some possible KM initiatives thus include:
 Collecting feedback
 Collecting and processing marketing related information
 Collecting suggestions
 Involvement in development/design
Effective acquisition of customer knowledge is dependent on customer
relationship management. IT can be used in this context both as a means of
collecting feedback and enhancing communication and cooperation between
partners (the principles of knowledge sharing apply here within the confines of
the specific relationship). It is also useful as a way to gather data and
information regarding sales, trends, feedback, and so on, which can then be
used to create new knowledge within the organization.
Suppliers
Chan (2009) presents a classification for supplier knowledge based on the
concepts outlined by Gerbert et al (2002) regarding customer knowledge. These
are:
 Knowledge for suppliers: This is the knowledge that suppliers require and
includes "production needs and forecasts, inventory, products, customers, and
markets" (Chan 2009).
 Knowledge about suppliers: This is knowledge that is used to understand how
the supplier can match the requirements of the organization; provide insight
regarding quality, delivery, defects, financial risks etc.
 Knowledge from suppliers: This refers to the knowledge that suppliers have
gathered from their dealings with the organization.
The KM initiatives and the role of IT are similar to the ones presented in the
customer segment, with the organization now taking on the role of customer.

65
Knowledge acquisition in this case also includes data and information which
can be processed and used as building blocks for new knowledge creation.
Gamble and Blackwell (2001) refer to compatible goals, cultural alignment,
and leadership commitment amongst the key factors for sustained, productive,
long-term relationships.
Competitors
This deserves mention but it is a fairly straightforward aspect of KM. It simply
involves collecting, organizing and presenting the data, information, and
knowledge that the firm has acquired in such a way that one can search,
retrieve, and analyze it. Some of this falls within the scope of information
management, but it is particularly the process of using these components to
create better decisions and new knowledge that is of interest here.
IT systems are very useful in this case, since the sources are largely explicit and
presumably require frequent updating and manipulation. Data mining and
analysis, document management systems with suitable search functions, and expert
systems are most relevant here.
Partners/alliances
Alliances intended to increase knowledge are a valuable potential resource.
However these must be properly managed. Key success factors include
fostering trust, learning from your partner, and effectively managing the
creation of knowledge relevant to both parties. Knowledge transfer can be
facilitated by personnel exchanges, common projects and other forms of regular
interaction, technology sharing, etc. (Gamble & Blackwell 2001). Focusing on
informal communication, collaboration, and socialization is of paramount
importance for valuable tacit knowledge acquisition and for extending
communities of practice beyond the firm's borders.
Chan (2009) once again formulates a set of knowledge types based around the
work of Gerbert et al (2002):

66
 Knowledge for partners: Knowledge which satisfies their needs, including
"knowledge about products, markets, and suppliers" (Chan 2009).
 Knowledge about partners: Knowledge acquisition focused on understanding
the ability of partners to perform their role in the relationship. Includes
distribution channels, products, services, etc.
 Knowledge from partners: The knowledge that partners have accumulated from
dealing with the organization.
IT can be used in this case very similarly to the way it is used inside the
organization for knowledge sharing and knowledge creation (including
data/information analysis) - in other words supporting communication,
collaboration, experimentation, expertise location, analysis tools, etc. The exact
system has to fit the nature of the relationship and the business model.
What is of particular importance in this case is to safeguard the system so that
only that knowledge which the firm is willing to share becomes available. In
the 80s, joint ventures between American and Japanese firms often resulted in a
lopsided endeavor favoring the latter, since the Japanese were far more willing
to listen and the Americans were far more willing to talk. It is important to
remember that the goal here is two way learning; that a relationship will not last
forever; and that a partner today may be a competitor tomorrow. KM must
therefore be very aware of what knowledge is being shared, and the IT systems
must reflect this policy.
Merges & Acquisitions
This aspect deserves mention, but as a general discipline it is well beyond the
scope of this paper. Dealing with mergers and acquisitions (M&A) is an
extremely complex task that has led to numerous failures. Within the scope of
knowledge acquisition, the area related to KM is how to pass on the most
amount of relevant knowledge from the previous two organizations to the new,
combined firm.
Very broadly speaking there are a couple of roles where KM efforts should
feature heavily once the target has been acquired:
To identify the valuable/redundant knowledge sources in the target
organization: This is a very difficult process since it involves understanding of

67
the target company's tacit and embedded knowledge locked within people,
communities, processes, networks, procedures, etc. One of the major causes of
failure in M&A is that during the restructuring process, key people are let go by
mistake or key communities are disrupted. The old adage that the company
should be seen more like a living organism than a machine holds very true here.
To combine this (relevant) knowledge with the organization's knowledge
assets to achieve synergy: This is the essence of many M&A; the notion that
the whole should be greater than the sum of its parts. Integrating acquired
companies is a difficult task, heavy on people management and the creation of
a common culture. It is hard to say how much of this falls within KM
specifically, and there certainly are no universal rules on this topic.
Fundamentally, the same principles on knowledge sharing, reuse, and creation
apply here, with a particular focus on culture, networks, and incentives, within
a different and potentially hostile environment.
Other expertise
This refers to the other sources of external knowledge available to a firm, and
includes hiring new personal or acquiring the services of consultants.
The role of KM in these cases is to make sure that the right knowledge is
acquired. Essentially the process has two parts, on the one hand the strategic
and tactical requirements of the firm must be taken into account, and on the
other these must be compared to the knowledge assets of the organization.
If external services are acquired from consultants or other temporary service
providers, KM must work together with strategic management to determine if
this knowledge is worth integrating into the firm by assessing the need to reuse
it in the future vs the cost of transferring it into the organization. If it is deemed
as something that should be integrated, then the right learning situations must
be established to transfer the knowledge into the firm. These could
be mentoring relationships, use of project teams that include organizational
members, courses and education, etc.

68
Knowledge Management Strategy
While the knowledge management processes section dealt with the general
ways knowledge can be managed, this section tackles long-term knowledge
management strategy. Strategic investments represent the company’s
choices/options so as to enable and enhance the processes outlined earlier (e.g.
knowledge sharing) and to offer help define which knowledge is relevant (i.e.
in line with strategic objectives) and which is not.
This section is based on the strategic part of the integrated knowledge management
model, which includes:
 Knowledge management strategic initiatives:
 Invest: Support of existing structures, competencies, knowledge retention
mechanisms, culture, external network, and knowledge management systems
 Invest: Implement changes to structures, competencies, knowledge retention
mechanisms, culture, external network, and knowledge management systems
 Divest: Remove obsolete knowledge
The articles that follow are based solely on the points under "invest". Based on
that we arrive at the following headings:
 KM and Organizational Structures
 KM and Organizational Culture
 KM and Knowledge Retention
 KM and Core Competencies
 KM and External Knowledge Network
 KM and Knowledge Management Systems
 Summary: Knowledge Management Best Practices
As many of you might realize, many of the strategic initiatives deal with
aspects that extend into different branches of management. I will endeavor to
stick to the scope of this subsection and, for the most part, limit my discussion
only to aspects relevant to knowledge management strategy. Furthermore, at all
stages of the following discussion on knowledge management strategy, I will
also refer to different knowledge types and to IT systems, whenever necessary.
However, the subsection dealing with knowledge management systems will be
the first that focuses specifically on IT. It will discuss the general
implementation issues, leading to the subsequent section that looks at some
specific systems and tools.

69
At the end, we will present a summary of all the conclusions and
recommendations made throughout this section and the one on knowledge
management processes, in a subsection titled Knowledge Management Best
Practices. This will serve as a way to provide a quick overview of knowledge
management strategy, and could be read on its own by readers who are not
interested in a more detailed account.
Managing Organizational Structures
This discussion deals with the physical and non-physical divisions and barriers
that influence the way knowledge management (KM) operate. By
"organizational structure", I refer to the layout of the company itself and also to
the various bodies that exist within it.
It is important to note that many elements within this topic stretch well outside
our focus, and volumes could be written on it alone. The focus here will be
only on the general elements that are directly related to KM.
Types of Organizational Structures
Organizational structures deal with the way the firm is organized, and the way
people relate to one another. Broadly speaking, there are two types of
organizational structure, namely formal and informal. These two concepts are
not independent, and the formal structure may greatly influence informal
networks, both positively and negatively.
Formal: The official structure of the organization, which is normally displayed
on an organizational chart, and which denotes the hierarchical relationships
between members of the firm. It is beyond the scope of this site to offer a
discussion on the various formal organizational structures. However, there are a
few things that are relevant to KM:
1. The formal organizational structure must not be so rigidly enforced so as
to stifle informal structures such as communities of practice,
where knowledge sharing and creation may take place. It is the knowledge
manager's job to understand the knowledge dynamics of the organization
and to recognize how the formal and informal structures coexist.

70
2. The formal organizational structure, particularly in a larger firm with
separate departments, will impact knowledge flows. There is no set
structure that is best, since most have advantages and disadvantages
depending upon the business type, firm size, etc. However, studies seem to
indicate that flatter, decentralized structures are more effective for KM
(Choi & Lee 2000, Claver-Cortés et al 2007, Chen & Huang 2007). This
also makes sense logically, since knowledge flows would be less hindered
in such a structure.
Implementing changes to formal structures can thus mean restructuring the
organization, but it can also mean enforcing existing structures to a lesser or
greater degree.
Informal: The unofficial organizational structures are the ones that are created
through informal networks, as a result of working within the organization. They
represent the way people actually interact. Brown and Duguid (1992)
advocated looking at the firm as a community of communities. Increasingly,
the value of these informal structures is being understood, and the knowledge
manager must learn to identify and support these networks. This process is
closely related to KM, since knowledge flows and repositories (particularly
tacit) are dependent upon these structures. KM therefore must play a central
role in their management, including identification of the structures and the
knowledge they hold, implementing changes, bridging gaps between
communities, and so on. Unfortunately, implementing changes to informal
social networks is difficult without running the risk of disrupting them. There
are however several ways that managers can influence social networks:
 Generalists (sometimes referred to as gatekeepers) can be used to identify
communities and their expert know-how, and to help coordinate activities such as
cross-functional projects.
 Project teams and other teamwork can serve as a means to bridge the gap between
communities.
 Common physical meeting areas can allow communities to grow and flourish.
 Virtual socialization and people finders can support communities of practice.
 Common vision, goals, ideals, social gatherings etc. and a climate of trust can
serve as a way to lessen the distance between organizational members and
communities.

71
Organizational Culture Change
The concept of organizational culture has already been discussed in a previous
subsection. we will therefore keep my introduction to the subject to a
minimum, and instead focus almost exclusively on organizational culture
change.
Organizational culture represents the way things are done in an organization,
encompassing the values, beliefs, and attitude that generate a common
framework for interpreting events.
Knowledge sharing, and thus all aspects related to knowledge management (KM),
depend upon organizational culture. Trust is a particularly important issue,
since workers need to feel secure that they are not jeopardizing themselves by
engaging in knowledge sharing. In order for proper cooperation to take place,
management must create a culture where knowledge sharing is seen as
beneficial for the individual as well as the organization. Managing
organizational culture change is therefore at the very core of KM and
organizational learning processes.

72
Defining and Mapping Organizational Culture
Johnson (2001) presents a model called the cultural web (see below), outlining
the various components of organizational culture.
The paradigm: The set of assumptions shared and taken for granted by the
organization.
Rituals and Routines: These represent "the way we do things around here".
They point to what is valued, and include behaviors that are taken for granted
as being correct.
Stories and myths: The organization's folklore that passes on the common
perception of past events, thus reinforcing beliefs and passing them on to
newcomers.
Symbols: All the symbolic elements of the firm, including titles and dress
codes.

73
Control Systems: Systems that are designed to promote certain activities by
rewarding correct behavior and monitoring performance.
Org. Structures: The formal structure of the organization, as explained in the
subsection on organizational structures (though in this case it is considered
solely in regards to its influence on culture).
Power structures: The more powerful groups are also most likely to be
involved in shaping the paradigm. A big problem arises when "the main targets
for change are also those who hold the power." (Bali et al 2009).
Johnson (2001) advocates culture mapping according to this framework so as to
assess the culture as a whole and be able to determine its compatibility with
strategy.
Managing Organizational Culture Change
Wellman (2009) presents a series of leadership roles that will help facilitate
organizational culture change towards a knowledge friendly culture:
 Acknowledge the existence and influence of organizational culture: It must be
brought into the open so people can see and understand how it affects activities.
 Have a clear and persistent vision of what the culture should be and of what
changes need to be applied: This vision must be understood by management at
all levels and spread across the organization.
 Consciously manage culture: Wellman suggests the using health assessments
and employee surveys to evaluate progress and direction. Expanding upon this,
one might add the use of incentives (whatever is suitable within that particular
organization) and of using managers as intermediaries between different cultures
within the organization. Management must strive to create a culture where
knowledge sharing is perceived as beneficial to the whole and also to the
individual. In other words, through shared vision, incentives, etc. they must foster
an atmosphere of trust to ensure that individuals have faith in the principle of
reciprocity. They must also bridge cultural differences that exist between different
communities and power structures within the organization.
Gardner presents a somewhat more concrete approach to organizational culture
change. He states that it is dependent on redefining the assumptions that shape
the common understanding, or in other words the paradigm. It thus involves

74
introducing "anomalies" that present a reality that cannot be true under the old
assumptions. As more and more anomalies are presented, people will
eventually abandon old beliefs and frames of understanding and eventually be
willing to adopt new ones.
No matter what, organizational culture change is a difficult process that is
likely to meet significant resistance. Its stubbornness is due in part to the fact
that it is history dependent, woven into everyday practice, and used as
socializing mechanism for newcomers (Beitler 2005). However, as Beitler
argues, despite all the hurdles, managing culture simply must be done.
Knowledge Retention
Knowledge retention involves capturing knowledge in the organization so that
it can be used later. In a previous section on organizational memory, Walsh and
Ungson (1991) defined five knowledge repositories, namely individuals,
culture, transformations (i.e. procedures & formalized systems), structures (e.g.
formal and informal networks), and external activities. This is where
knowledge can exist or be retained in an organization. In this section, we are
interested in the managerial side, so as to answer the question: How can
management promote the retention of (crucial) knowledge?
Most often, one hears of knowledge retention in the context of losing key
employees and using techniques such as exit interviews to try to capture their
knowledge. In reality, knowledge retention should be integrated into how the
organization operates and start well before a key employee is about to depart.
Although it is considered crucial for long term organizational success, few
organizations have formal knowledge retention strategies (Liebowitz 2011).

75
A knowledge retention strategy as a part of knowledge management (KM) will
identify the knowledge resources that are at risk and must be retained, and then
implement specific initiatives so as to keep these resources in the firm. Like
most other KM-related processes and strategies, success depends upon
successful knowledge sharing and having a knowledge sharing &
learning organizational culture.
Apart from the more general knowledge sharing initiatives that a firm may use
- e.g. support of formal & informal knowledge networks (social areas, social
media, meetings, company functions, knowledge fairs, expertise locator, etc.),
changing the organization culture, etc. - examples of tools & techniques which
can be used specifically for knowledge retention include (adapted from Smith
2007, Liebowitz 2009, and Liebowitz 2011):
 Implementing reward structures to encourage sharing of key knowledge.
 Use of project teams and cross-functional project teams.
 After-action reviews.
 Storytelling.
 Mentoring programs & job shadowing.
 Interviews & exit interviews.
 Job rotation.
 Company procedures/processes manuals.
 Taking advantage of the knowledge of retirees.
Knowledge Retention Strategy
Doan et al (2011) identify three basic questions that must be asked when
considering knowledge retention:
1. What knowledge may be lost?
2. What are the organizational consequences of losing that knowledge?
3. What actions can be taken to retain that knowledge?
Expanding upon these questions, one can outline several concrete steps
necessary in the formulation of a knowledge retention strategy:
1. Understanding your risk factor: Liebowitz (2011) identified
a. The average age of your employees is high
b. The company has placed insufficient focus on:
i. knowledge capture
ii. mentoring programs
iii. employee training and development

76
c. Information is difficult to find or is often misplaced.
d. There is little informal communication in the organization.
e. Many knowledgeable employees are leaving the organization.
2. Classifying your knowledge: Knowing the knowledge resources of the
organization, including where they are and in what form they exist (something
covered under knowledge organization and assessment).
3. Understanding which knowledge is most critical (also covered knowledge
organization and assessment).
4. Understanding the pillars of knowledge retention (Liebowitz 2009 & 2011):
Knowledge retention consists of a wide range of tools, some easy and some hard
to implement. Liebowitz identifies four categories which encompass all the
initiatives within knowledge retention. These are:
a. Recognition and reward structure: Management has the choice to use
either intrinsic motivators (i.e. which make the job itself more satisfying,
such as praise or recognition) or extrinsic motivators (i.e. which offer
benefits unrelated to the job, such as money) (Gamelgaard 2007). These
must take organizational as well as national cultural factors into account
(Gamelgaard 2007), but overall the most effective and longer lasting
appear to be intrinsic motivators (Gamelgaard 2007 & Liebowitz 2009).
However, a combination of both is usually the way to go.
b. Bidirectional knowledge flow: Establishing a two-way system of
knowledge capture, where knowledge is not only passed down from the
senior employee to the junior employee, but also vice versa.
c. Personalization and codification: Personalization refers to connecting
people and includes tools such as mentoring, jon rotation, knowledge fairs,
communities, and so on, while codification includes tools like after action
reviews, various knowledge repositories, lessons learned systems, etc.
(Liebowitz 2009).
d. The golden gem: Bringing back important retirees in various capacities.
This includes rehire programs, consultancy, part-time work, temporary
jobs, etc. (Corporate Executive Board 2005). Using a phased retirement
system (e.g. leave of absence – part time work – casual rehire) can also
help to slowly lose a key employee and to gradually transfer all his key
knowledge to the organization (Corporate Executive Board 2005).
5. Understanding the success factors: Doan et al (2011), following a comprehensive
review of knowledge retention literature, arrive at the following key success
factors:
a. Top management support

77
b. Knowledge retention strategy
c. Learning culture
d. Human resource practices (since knowledge resides in people, knowledge
retention is closely linked to HR practices including recruitment,
education, rewards, and performance management)
e. Information and communication technology tools
KM and Core Competencies
The knowledge management definition presented earlier, involved the reuse and
creation of relevant knowledge. The word relevant links knowledge
management (KM) to the concept of organizational core competencies. Once
again, the challenge here is to discuss this subject without diverging too much
into related topics that are not directly relevant to KM.
Core competencies: Definitions vary greatly. The term was originally coined
by Pralahad and Hamel (1990) who defined it as "the collective learning of the
organization, especially how to coordinate different production skills and
integrate multiple streams of technologies". Since then it has been defined in
multiple ways, but very generally, core competencies refer to the firm's primary
expertise, which is a source of sustained competitive advantage. Arriving at a
more precise definition is not necessary for our purpose here. Suffice it to say,
that these are key capabilities, which, from the resource-based perspective of
the firm, are the primary drivers of innovation and competitive advantage.
Core competencies thus have a large knowledge component, and managing
them is, in the very least, a product of corporate strategy working with KM and
innovation management. This simplified model has strategy dictating the
overall direction, KM managing the knowledge dynamics, and innovation
management turning core competencies into profitable core products. To
understand the role of KM let us look at a brief overview of how core
competencies are managed:
1. Identifying and assessing core competencies: The firm should map out its
key competencies, possibly linking them directly to specific core products.
Then, an evaluation must take place, assessing what one has vs. what one needs
to have (as determined by strategy and the competitive environment). KM is
responsible for identifying where the key knowledge is located, including the
tacit expertise and knowledge embedded in products, routines, etc, as well as
identifying knowledge gaps.

78
2. Sustaining core competencies: Organizational core competencies, like all
knowledge assets, have the virtue of improving rather than depreciating
through use. Conversely, lack of use will lead to erosion of any skill set. The
role of KM here is twofold, on the one hand, it must keep stock of the state of
key knowledge assets and, on the other, it must leverage key knowledge assets
across the organization.
3. Building core competencies: Building new core competencies involves an
interplay between knowledge, practice, coordination, and refinement.
Knowledge assets must be built, enhanced, combined, and coordinated in an
environment that supports experimentation and improvement. Building core
competencies can be a complicated endeavor since sustained competitive
advantage is derived from assets that are hard to imitate (Dierickx and Cool
1989). From a KM perspective, this implies the buildup of specific tacit
knowledge and expertise (i.e. uncodified knowledge that is generally more
valuable and inherently more difficult to copy and transfer), often across
multiple departments or functions.
4. Unlearning core competencies: Organizations have a habit of trying to keep
doing what they have always been doing. Unlearning a competency when it is
no longer useful is one of the key aspects of a successful firm, and history is
riddled with examples of companies that have failed to do so. In the process of
unlearning, KM again plays an important role by identifying and managing the
firm's knowledge assets in the right direction. This may be done through re-
training, restructuring, creating new knowledge flows, external knowledge
acquisition, outright removal, etc.
The specific dynamics of the processes of knowledge creation, knowledge
acquisition, knowledge sharing, and knowledge reuse, which are central to the
management of core competencies, have been discussed earlier. The purpose of
this section is to emphasize that KM is not just a collection of individual
initiatives. The buildup of skills and competencies, involving the coordination
of multiple KM disciplines with other organizational functions, must often be
managed according to long-term strategic goals and coordinated across the
organization.

79
Managing the External Knowledge Network
Having explored the dynamics of knowledge acquisition from external sources,
we will now briefly look at the role knowledge management (KM) has in the
broader, long-term process of building an external knowledge network. Once
again, we want to underline that this presentation is only intended as a broad
overview of the potential roles of KM, and will not go into any detail on
specific topics such as customer or supplier relationship management.
In the previous subsection, the major potential external knowledge sources
were identified as:
 Customers
 Suppliers
 Competitors
 Partners
 Mergers & Acquisitions
Each of these categories offers a different set of potential knowledge, as well as
different challenges in the acquisition process.
Without looking specifically at KM, the general steps for extending the external
knowledge network are as follows:
 Identification of potential partner/target: This would depend largely on the
corporate strategic goals assessed against the perceived benefit of the potential
partners.
 Evaluation of potential partner/target: This process is particularly important
for high investment ventures like mergers and acquisitions or joint ventures. The
process would be driven by the estimated contribution of the target (this includes
knowledge and core competencies but also potentially other assets), the estimated
cost of establishing the relationship, and the estimated cost of acquiring similar
knowledge from other sources (including building it in-house). The word
"estimated" plays a key role here, since the information required to make accurate
decisions is often hard to come by.
 Establishing the relationship/acquisition of target: The process of actually
establishing cooperation/acquisition. For customer, supplier, or competitor
relationships this may involve setting up procedures, rules, and intentions
regarding the nature of the relationship and the things that will be reported or
shared. For mergers and acquisitions it could take any number of forms and may

80
include defining a new structure, integration into a common locale, merging
corporate cultures/identities, and so on.
 Knowledge transferal/integration: The actual processes that are put in place to
gather and use the knowledge and know-how from the relationship/acquisition.
These may involve reporting procedures, feedback mechanisms, common IT
systems, common projects etc.
The role of KM in building the external knowledge network would thus be to:
 Provide all the relevant information regarding internal knowledge
assets: This includes identifying what the firm has, what it does not have, and the
costs associated with building new knowledge.
 Help in the evaluation process: help evaluate the potential value and difficulty
to integrate of the knowledge that the firm expects to acquire.
 Encourage knowledge sharing & integration: On the one hand it could involve
working with top management so as to devise the best procedures and systems
relating to knowledge transfer. On the other, it could involve introducing
incentives, systems, managing organizational culture change, etc. that facilitate,
support, and encourage knowledge sharing.
 Gather, integrate, and share relevant external knowledge and
information: Managing the knowledge transfer process so as to ensure that the
knowledge is relevant and that it is available whenever and wherever necessary.
Analyzation of data and information so as to provide the building blocks of new
knowledge.
As one can see, KM plays a supporting role in all areas and is instrumental in
the learning process. Its importance will be greater the more knowledge
intensive the industry and nature of the relationship.
Due to the complexity of these topics and the vastly different managerial
requirements, I will end this discussion with just these general considerations.
KM Tools
The issue of knowledge management systems has probably always been the
most discussed and debated topic within knowledge management (KM). Even
though knowledge management systems are not the most important part of KM

81
(with some arguing that they are not even absolutely necessary), this is still the
subject that generates most interest.
On this site, we have considered the impact of IT in all the knowledge
management strategy subsections, with particular emphasis on its role
in knowledge sharing. From this point on, the discussion will be organized as
follows:
 This subsection will discuss the theoretical implementation of knowledge
management systems and its impact on the organization.
 The section titled "KM Tools" will look at some of the main categories of systems
available.
What are Knowledge ManagementSystems?
Knowledge management systems refer to any kind of IT system that stores and
retrieves knowledge, improves collaboration, locates knowledge sources, mines
repositories for hidden knowledge, captures and uses knowledge, or in some
other way enhances the KM process.
James Robertson (2007) goes as far as to argue that organizations should not
even think in terms of knowledge management systems. He argues that KM,
though enhanced by technology, is not a technology discipline, and thinking in
terms of knowledge management systems leads to expectations of "silver
bullet" solutions. Instead, the focus should be determining the functionality of
the IT systems that are required for the specific activities and initiatives within
the firm.
We fully agree with his reasoning. However, for the purpose of this article
(intended to be useful for those people that do search for terms like knowledge
management systems), we will break these down into the following general
categories (adapted from the work of Gupta and Sharma 2005, in Bali et al
2009):
 Groupware systems & KM 2.0
 The intranet and extranet
 Data warehousing, data mining, & OLAP
 Decision Support Systems
 Content management systems
 Document management systems

82
 Artificial intelligence tools
 Simulation tools
 Semantic networks
These categories will cover the vast majority of the systems that people will
normally link directly to KM.
Problems and Failure Factors
Too often, the effects of technology on the organization are not given enough
thought prior to the introduction of a new system. There are two sets of
knowledge necessary for the design and implementation of a knowledge
management system (Newell et al., 2000):
1. The technical programming and design know-how
2. Organizational know-how based on the understanding of knowledge flows
The problem is that rarely are both these sets of knowledge known by a single
person. Moreover, technology is rarely designed by the people who use it.
Therefore, firms are faced with the issue of fit between IT systems and
organizational practices, as well as with acceptance within organizational
culture (Gamble & Blackwell 2001).
Botha et al (2008) stress the importance of understanding what knowledge
management systems cannot do. They point to the fact that introducing
knowledge sharing technologies does not mean that experts will share
knowledge - other initiatives have to be in place.
Akhavan et al (2005) identify several additional failure factors including: lack
of top management support, organizational culture, lack of a separate budget,
and resistance to change.
Building upon all this, and incorporating previously discussed elements, failure
factors of knowledge management systems are as follows:
 Inadequate support: managerial and technical, during both implementation and
use.
 Expecting that the technology is a KM solution in itself.
 Failure to understand exactly what the firm needs (whether technologically or
otherwise).
 Not understanding the specific function and limitation of each individual system.

83
 Lack of organizational acceptance, and assuming that if you build it, they will
come – lack of appropriate organizational culture.
 Inadequate quality measures (e.g. lack of content management).
 Lack of organizational/departmental/etc fit - does it make working in the
organization. easier? Is a system appropriate in one area of the firm but not
another? Does it actually disrupt existing processes?
 Lack of understanding of knowledge dynamics and the inherent difficulty in
transferring tacit knowledge with IT based systems (see segment on tacit
knowledge under knowledge sharing).
 Lack of a separate budget.
Promoting Acceptance and Assimilation
According to Hecht et al. (2011) the process of successful implementation has
three stages: adoption, acceptance, and assimilation. Based on recognized
models and theories, the authors identified three comprehensive sets of factors
affecting these three elements. The resulting model organized the KMS
implementation factors into the following categories:
 Adoption:
o Influenced by design: Innovation characteristics, fit, expected results,
communication characteristics.
o Not influenced by design: Environment, technological infrastructure,
resources, and organizational characteristics.
 Acceptance:
o Influenced by design: Effort expectancy, performance expectancy.
o Not influenced by design: Social influences, attitude towards technology
use.
 Assimilation:
o Influenced by design: social system characteristics, process characteristics.
o Not influenced by design: Management characteristics, institutional
characteristics.
Step 1: KMS Adoption
Some of the key factors identified by Hecht et al (2011) are: characteristics,
commercial advantage, cultural values, information quality, organizational
viability, and system quality. To promote KMS adoption:
 Start with an internal analysis of the firm.

84
 Evaluate information/knowledge needs & flows, lines of communication,
communities of practice, etc. These findings should form the basis of determining
the systems needed to complement them.
 Make a thorough cost-benefit analysis, considering factors like size of firm,
number of users, complexity of the system structure, frequency of use, upkeep &
updating costs, security issues, training costs (including ensuring acceptance) etc.
vs improvements in performance, lower response time, lower costs (relative to the
previous systems) etc.
 Evaluate existing work practices and determine how the systems will improve -
and not hinder - the status quo.
 One very interesting rule of thumb presented by Botha et al (2008), is that "the
more tacit the knowledge, the less high-tech the required solution". For example,
expert knowledge is often best supported by multimedia communication
technology and by expert finders. Beyond that, it is about human interaction and
collaboration.
Step 2: KMS acceptance
Some of the factors outlined by Hecht et al. (2011) include: anxiety, ease of
use, intrinsic motivation, job-fit, results demonstrability, and social factors.
Promoting acceptance can be improved by:
 Involve the users in the design and implementation process when possible
(Liebowitz 1999).
 Involve the user in the evaluation of the system when applicable (Liebowitz
1999).
 Make it as user friendly and as intuitive as possible (Frank 2002).
 Support multiple perspectives of the stored knowledge (Frank 2002).
 Provide adequate technical and managerial support.
 Use product champions to promote the new systems throughout the organization.

85
Step 3: KMS Assimilation
Some of the factors identified by Hecht et al. (2011) include: knowledge
barrier, management championship, process cost, process quality, and
promotion of collaboration. Assimilation can be improved by:
 Content management (Gamble & Blackwell, 2011): In order for the system to
remain useful, its content must be kept relevant through updating, revising,
filtering, organization, etc.
 Perceived attractiveness factors (Gamble & Blackwell, 2001): This includes not
only the advantages of using the KMS, but also of management's ability to
convince users of these advantages.
 Proper budgeting: i.e. planning expenses and implementing a KMS that is cost
efficient.
 Focus on collaboration. In particular, consider the adoption of enterprise 2.0 / KM
2.0 systems, which by design promote collaboration while generally being
inexpensive and often quite popular.
 Management involvement: The system must be championed by management at all
levels.
Naturally, these factors do not apply to all systems. Some are fairly
straightforward and accepted in today's society (e.g. email). However, the
strategic implications of implementing knowledge management systems that
significantly aim to change the way things are done in the organization requires
proper consideration and careful planning.
Summary: Knowledge Management Best
Practices
This section offers an overview of the main points discussed thus far in the
knowledge management processes and knowledge management strategy
sections.
First, let us take a step back and look at the enablers of knowledge
management (KM). According to Botha et al (2008) these are:
 Culture: One which is supportive of knowledge management, and the processes
it implies - particularly knowledge sharing.

86
 Infrastructure: Support systems, teams, structures, and collaboration.
 Measures: Developing a process and design for managing change.
 Technology: Can offer great advantages in certain areas. Similarly, if misused, it
can sabotage the KM process. Whether technology deserves its status as an
enabler is debatable, but it is nonetheless important.
According to the authors, these aspects are what make KM possible. For
instance, KM initiatives implemented in a company with a competitive culture
that shuns knowledge sharing are doomed to fail from the start. I would not go
as far as to call technology an enabler, but it is an important aspect nonetheless
and an unavoidable part of any modern knowledge management best practices.
With this in mind, we will now recap the main KM processes. The knowledge
management best practices summary below will cover all the categories
mentioned above.
Determining the Organization's Knowledge and Know-how:
 Knowledge Discovery and Detection: Refers to the processes of identifying
existing knowledge sources, as well as discovering hidden knowledge in data and
information. This knowledge resides both inside the organization and externally,
in customers, suppliers, partners, etc.
o Explicit knowledge: Document management, intelligence gathering, data
mining, text mining etc. IT is useful/crucial in this respect.
o Tacit (embodied) knowledge: Includes tools/practices such as knowledge
surveys, questionnaires, individual interviews, group interviews, focus
groups, network analysis, and observation. IT has a more limited and
indirect role.
o Embedded knowledge Includes observation, analysis, reverse
engineering, and modeling tools to identify knowledge stored within
procedures, products, etc.
 Knowledge Organization & Assessment: The process of mapping, categorizing,
indexing, and evaluating organizational knowledge assets.
o This is heavily supported by IT, which can use complex categorization and
retrieval mechanisms to organize knowledge assets in multiple ways.

87
o Tacit (embodied) knowledge: This is done through the use of focus
groups, expertise guides, and knowledge coordinators (Gamble &
Blackwell 2001).
o Embedded knowledge: Tools include job/workplace design, workflow
analyses and performance measures (Gamble & Blackwell 2001)
Tactical Knowledge Management Best Practices:
 Knowledge Sharing: Perhaps the most important process in KM, it plays a
determinant role for both knowledge reuse and knowledge creation. The factors
below summarize the key considerations with the exception of cultural issues,
which are discussed further down.
o Explicit knowledge: Depends on articulation of needs, awareness of
knowledge, access to knowledge, guidance in the knowledge sharing
process, and completeness of the knowledge sources (Bukowitz &
Williams 1999). IT systems and content management are extremely
important in this process.
o Tacit (embodied) knowledge: This depends on socialization, particularly
within informal networks. Culture is particularly important in this area.
Tacit knowledge can rarely be effectively codified without losing the
essence that makes it so valuable to begin with, so the focus should be on
supporting work relationships. IT has a secondary supporting role in this
context, primarily as an expert finder and as offering support in the
socialization process (e.g. through groupware applications).
o Embedded knowledge: Use of scenario planning, after action reviews,
and management training (Gamble & Blackwell 2001). IT has a role in
mapping, modeling, creating simulations, and as an embedded knowledge
repository.
 Knowledge Reuse: Involves three roles, the knowledge producer, intermediary,
and consumer (Markus 2001), which are involved in creating, preparing, and
actually reusing the knowledge. Two keys elements here are culture and cost -
particularly relating to tacit knowledge (where indexing the source rather than the
knowledge itself is often more viable). Markus identifies four reuse situations:
o Shared work producers
o Shared work practitioners
o Expert seeking novices
o Miners of secondary knowledge
 Knowledge Creation: This process depends upon knowledge sharing (as defined
above), collaboration, and access to relevant information and data. Cook and

88
Brown (1999) suggest that knowledge creation is an interplay between knowledge
and knowing, or in other words, putting knowledge into practice. The role of
management in this process was identified as:
o Enabling knowledge sharing: As above
o Creating suitable work related environments: The focus here is on
unstructured work environments where experimentation, trial and error,
and theory in use are promoted. Self-organizing, semi- or fully-
autonomous project teams are identified as one useful tool in this
endeavor.
o Providing access to collaborative IT systems: Groupware applications can
be used for this purpose. These must support and not interfere with the
ideal work environment.
o Providing access to relevant data and information: From information
systems, data warehouses, data mining, etc. These can act as building
blocks in the knowledge creation process.
 Knowledge Acquisition: The firm can acquire knowledge externally from
customers, suppliers, competitors, partners, and mergers. The role of KM varies in
each process (as does the type of available knowledge), but at its core its function
is to establish the right channels to transfer relevant knowledge from existing
partnerships into the firm, and to integrate this knowledge as best as possible. To
do so, KM can use a wide range of tools including:
o Common IT systems
o Common projects
o Interaction and socialization
o Involvement of partners in certain organizational processes (e.g. design)
o Cultural alignment (for mergers or joint ventures)
o Setting up the right incentive systems
o Identifying and protecting crucial knowledge assets: when such
knowledge should not be shared with a partner
Strategic Knowledge Management Best Practices:
 KM and Organizational Structures: Two types were defined: formal and
informal.
o Formal structure: These will interfere with KM if very rigidly enforced.
The choice of structure, and the physical division of the firm, will also
affect knowledge flows. Studies seem to show that decentralized structures
seem to be best for KM (Choi & Lee 2000, Claver-Cortés et al 2007, Chen
& Huang 2007).

89
o Informal structures: The firm should be perceived as a community
consisting of a collection of communities (Brown & Duguid 1992).
Management can affect these through the use of project teams, teamwork,
social functions, etc.
 KM and Organizational Culture Change: This must be recognized and
managed carefully and deliberately. By introducing anomalies that challenge the
accepted premises of organizational culture, management can influence
organizational members to abandon certain aspects in favor of others (Gardner
1997). Use of incentives and common vision and goals are also effective tools.
One of the most important goals is to create a culture where knowledge sharing is
perceived as beneficial rather than detrimental to the individual.
 KM and Knowledge Retention: Knowledge retention is the part of KM that is
concerned with making sure that important knowledge assets remain in the firm
over time, e.g. when key employees leave the firm or retire. Formulating a
knowledge retention strategy depends upon understanding which knowledge is
important, which knowledge is at risk and what it takes to keep this knowledge in
the organization. Depending upon its knowledge retention strategy a firm may
choose to implement one of many initiatives and tools including reward
structures, mentoring, interviews, and utilizing knowledge knowledge from
retirees.
 KM and Core Competencies: The management of core competencies consists of
four processes: identifying, sustaining, building, and unlearning. KM plays a key
supporting role throughout this process by:
o Identifying what the firm knows, and what its main expertise is.
o Leveraging knowledge assets across the organization.
o Building the right know-how and expertise to match strategic
requirements.
o Isolating and removing/changing obsolete knowledge.
 KM and the External Network: As mentioned before, external knowledge
sources include customers, suppliers, competitors, partners, mergers, etc. KM
plays a role in the assessment of potential partners, by helping to determine what
the organization knows, what it needs to know, and the best ways of getting that
knowledge. It is also a key element during the cooperation process to ensure that
the right knowledge is transferred and integrated into the organization.
 KM and Knowledge Management Systems: This very ambiguous category of
systems refers to most systems used in the sharing, discovery, and creation of
knowledge. Failures are generally due to an over reliance on technology, a lack of
understanding of the limitations of these systems, improper fit with organizational
practices, lack of acceptance, etc. Proper implementation implies paying attention
to:

90
o Organizational fit: Carry out internal assessment of needs and work
practices, cost-benefit analysis, etc.
o Organizational acceptance: by involving the user in the design and
implementation, through managerial and technical support, and with
product champions, etc.
o Continued use: A function of perceived attractiveness factors and content
management (Gamble and Blackwell 2001).
This concludes the summary of knowledge management best practices. KM is a
process that spreads throughout the organization. Its scope is difficult to define
and its effects are hard to measure - e.g. how do you determine the ROI on a
discipline designed to subtly improve most aspects of the organization?
Nonetheless, if properly implemented, it is a worthwhile investment that will
promote efficiency, learning, innovation, and competitive advantage.
KM Tools
In this section, we present an overview of the IT-based tools and systems that
can help knowledge management (KM) fulfill its goals.
The scope of this section is to provide the reader with an overview of the types
of KM tools available on the market today and to gain an understanding of
what their role is in the KM process. This is the most important step, since
there are literally thousands of options to choose from. However, in the future,
we intend to also take a look at some actual KM tools and present a few
reviews.
To recap, we have dealt with KM tools throughout the section on tactical
management initiatives, outlining its role in knowledge discovery, organization,
sharing, etc. In the section on knowledge management strategy, we presented
an article on knowledge management systems implementation, where we stated
that IT based tools, for the most part, fall into one of the following categories
(adapted from Gupta and Sharma 2005, in Bali et al 2009):
 Groupware systems & KM 2.0
 The intranet and extranet
 Data warehousing, data mining, & OLAP
 Decision Support Systems
 Content management systems
 Document management systems

91
 Artificial intelligence tools
 Simulation tools
 Semantic networks
For now, in the subsections that follow, we will discuss the first six KM tool
categories on this list, as they are usually what people refer to when speaking
of KM tools. Simulation tools is too broad a category for the scope of this site,
and artificial intelligence systems are of questionable usefulness and are outside
my area of expertise. However, in the (not too near) future, I do plan to add a
segment on semantic networks and artificial intelligence.
A quick note on artificial intelligence: While there was much excitement about
this a few years ago, to my understanding, it has not lived up to its expectations
(yet). Expert systems for example, designed to capture human decision-making
and to make the correct decisions in certain circumstances, have not been so
successful due to constantly changing requirements (Botha et al 2008). For
more on this, research topics such as neural networks, intelligent decision
support systems, and expert systems.
Again, we would like to remind the reader that KM is not a technological
discipline; it is more about managing people, culture, and organizational
practices & structures. Effective KM initiatives are therefore never technology
driven, and one should never seek a total KM "solution". In fact, we would
caution against any system that lays claims to that title. Doing so implies that
either the developers have no issue promising far more than they can deliver, or
they have no idea what a KM tool can and cannot do. Neither is a good
scenario.
However, if IT is used right - as a supporting and enhancing mechanism for
sound, existing KM practices - it can be a very valuable tool indeed.
Groupware Systems & KM 2.0
Groupware is a term that refers to technology designed to help people
collaborate and includes a wide range of applications. Wikipedia defines three
handy categories for groupware:
 Communication tools: Tools for sending messages and files, including email,
web publishing, wikis, file sharing, etc.

92
 Conferencing tools: e.g. video/audio conferencing, chat, forums, etc.
 Collaborative management tools: Tools for managing group activities, e.g.
project management systems, workflow systems, information management
systems, etc.
The best known groupware system is Lotus Notes.
If designed and implemented properly, groupware systems are very useful
when it comes to supporting knowledge management (KM). They can greatly
facilitate explicit knowledge sharing through publishing and communication
tools. They can support the knowledge creation process with collaborative
management tools - although this process is still very much about people
interacting and experimenting. Finally, they have some limited benefit to tacit
knowledge transfer by supporting socialization through tools like video
conferencing and informal communication. Expert finders are also beneficial
for facilitating the location of tacit sources of knowledge (i.e. the right expert).
Web 2.0, Enterprise 2.0, & KM 2.0
In recent years, the term web 2.0 has appeared to describe the increasingly
popular tools that promote two way communications on the internet. These
social tools include blogs, wikis, social bookmarking, commenting, shared
workspaces, micro blogging and polling (Bebensee et al. 2010). They differ
from traditional publishing in that they “put the knowledge sharing power in
the hands of the users themselves” (Gurteen, 2012).
The web 2.0 tools that have been applied within organizations have been called
enterprise 2.0 (Bebensee et al., 2010), and even more recently, the mapping of
these principles to KM has been dubbed KM 2.0 (Gurteen, 2012).
The value of KM 2.0: According to Cronk (2011, p. 84), web 2.0 tools
“facilitate the development of social capital through knowledge sharing, which
in turn increases the potential to create intellectual capital.” The author defines
social capital as the total resources existing across social networks. Wright et
al. (2010) find that the adoption of social media is not being championed by
KM to the extent that one might expect, representing a missed opportunity.
Limitations of KM 2.0: Enterprise & KM 2.0 systems can suffer from the
same failure factors as other KMS (more on this in the sections below). A

93
failure example is presented by Garcia-Perez & Ayres (2009), who outlined the
failure of an enterprise wiki. The study found that time needed to access &
contribute to the wiki as well as the achievement of critical mass (i.e. having an
adequate ratio of contributors) were failure factors. Furthermore, the authors
warn that just because when asked employees claim that they will share
knowledge, that does not actually mean they will do so when the system is
implemented.
Considerations for Groupware Acquisition/Design
When acquiring or developing groupware it is important to establish the
functions that best match the organization's needs (further considerations for IT
implementation can be found in the knowledge management system subsection).
Remember, these are not solutions, they are at most enablers of KM.
Determine the processes that take place in the organization as well as how
knowledge is currently stored and distributed, and establish how certain
functions would improve them. Focus on the informal - both in terms of
communication as well as the organizational networks and communities - so as
to enhance rather than stifle creativity and innovation, and to increase the
probability of acceptance.
Cheah (2007) points to the fact that many off the shelf groupware solutions
could be greatly improved. For instance, email clients are designed in such a
way so as to focus on the current email, but generally have limited functions for
drawing knowledge and information from past mails. Document management
systems also can be limited in their ability to extract knowledge from old
documents. In both cases he suggests improved utilization of user-input
metadata (including keywords that are weighed by importance) and
categorization mechanisms, which would allow for effective knowledge mining
in the future.
The point including this is that all groupware is not equal, and one should
consider the functions from the perspective of long-term knowledge reuse (when
applicable). For this to be possible, the intermediary knowledge
packaging/sanitizing/categorizing process must be done in light of future
expectations and requirements.

94
Groupware Implementation Issues
Groupware implies that workers are willing and able to work together and to
share their knowledge. Implementation of groupware systems have had
numerous failures. These have been attributed to:
"lack of top executive support, the proliferation of incompatible collaborative
tools, installation of inadequate tools, end-user confusion, and existing work
practices that are designed around individual rather than collaborative work"
(Jones 2005 in Janson et al 2008).
Janson et al (2008) highlight that the success of groupware implementation
hinges on the success that the organization has had in developing a culture
where collaboration and sharing are the norm. Without that, there is no
incentive to use the systems to their full potential.
The issue of standardization should also be considered. Will the systems be
used in the same way and with the same rules throughout the organization?
This should not be enforced if it may lead to a lack of acceptance and/or if it is
not practically feasible.
Selection of the groupware systems should be influenced by the users or in the
very least be carried out by someone who is knowledgeable in both the
functions of the system and the work practices of the users. Too often, this is
not the case, and the decision is made at the top levels of the organization, by
individuals who hardly ever operate the system (Grudin 2003 in Janson 2008).
Consider also how the chosen tools relate to one another, and if one should
invest in an integrated solution. For instance, an integrated groupware system
composed of many complementary modules may be easier on the user since it
implies getting accustomed to one brand. The same systems manufactured by
different companies could be far harder to learn. At the same time, they may
not offer as many features individually, and this too must be carefully balanced
against the firm's specific needs.

95
The Intranet & Extranet
The intranet is essentially a small-scale version of the internet, operating with
similar functionality, but existing solely within the firm. Like the internet, the
intranet uses network technologies such as Transmission Control
Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP). It allows for the creation of internal
networks with common internet applications that can allow them to
communicate with different operating systems (Newell et al 2000).
Although it need not be, the intranet is usually linked to the internet, where
broader searches are implemented. However, outsiders are excluded through
security measures such as firewalls.
The Role of the Intranet
The intranet can be a very useful tool in the knowledge management process. It
allows for the integration of multimedia communication and can act as a
platform for groupware applications and publishing. It is intended to enhance
collaboration, productivity, and socialization, but also to influence organizational
culture and to act as a repository for embedded knowledge.
Robertson (2009) identifies seven key roles of the intranet homepage:
1. News
2. Navigation
3. Key tools
4. Key information
5. Community and culture
6. Internal marketing
7. Collaboration
The focus is to provide a useful site that enhances work practices,
communicates key information, provides the right navigation tools, and helps
define organizational culture. Many factors have to be balanced to create the
right homepage, including quality of content, site design, site navigation, site &
content maintenance and updates, and the application of tools that are directly
useful to the business processes and networks. The objectives of the intranet

96
will also vary depending on the individual business, and may focus more on
certain aspects than others.
Perhaps the most important function of the intranet is knowledge sharing and
collaboration. The main functions supporting this are (Damsgaard & Scheepers
1998 in Newt et al 2000):
 Publishing: E,g, homepages, newsletters, documents, employee directories.
 Searching: The intranet can integrate different search functions, e.g. through a
search engine or using a system of categorization.
 Transacting: Allows user to make transactions with other web/intranet
homepages.
 Interacting: Collaborative applications and other groupware, expert finders,
directories, etc.
 Recording: It can be used as a storage medium for such elements as procedures,
best practices, and FAQs (embedded and explicit knowledge).
Successful Intranet Implementation
Naturally, the implementation of the intranet must be done in line with
organizational needs, processes, and objectives, as outlined in the section on
implementation of knowledge management systems.
One specific and key concern is the selection of the search engine. Google
offers an option for on-site search, which you can read more about here.
In his article, "The Ten Best Intranets of 2011", Jakob Nielsen (2011) indicates
that the best intranets implemented solutions in the following areas:
 Knowledge sharing: This aspect is very similar to what I have discussed so far
on this site and includes the sharing of all manner of explicit knowledge, but also
connecting people that require assistance to experts that can help them.
 Innovation management: By incorporating tools that support the recording and
management of new ideas.

97
 Comments: This is an easy way to allow users to contribute with their insight.
This type of loose, unstructured communication can provide some limited tacit
knowledge transfer and can encourage participation.
 Ratings: An even quicker, albeit shallower, way for people to point to good
sources of knowledge.
 Participation rewards: Point systems, badges, and other symbolic rewards
actually increase participation. Sometimes non-symbolic rewards (i.e. actual
prizes) were used.
 Customized collections: By allowing users to customize content collections, one
can bypass the shortcoming of never being fully able to predict a user's
knowledge and information needs.
The Extranet
The extranet is an extension of the intranet to the firm's external network,
including partners, suppliers and so on. The term is sometimes used to refer to a
supplementary system working alongside the intranet or to a part of the intranet
that is made available to certain external users.
The extranet provides a shared network with limited, controlled access to
organizational information and knowledge resources, and uses security
protocols, such as authentication, to limit access. An extranet can enhance
collaboration and information transfer with partners in the external network.
Security is a key concern, and a firm must protect its crucial knowledge and
information resources. This can be done using firewalls, use of encryption, and
simple or strong authentication. Simple authentication involves usernames and
passwords, while strong authentication makes use of digital certificates.
The content of both intranets and extranets is usually managed with a content
management system.
Warehousing Data: The Data Warehouse, Data Mining, and OLAP
Warehousing data is based on the premise that the quality of a manager's
decisions is based, at least in part, on the quality of his information. The goal of
storing data in a centralized system is thus to have the means to provide them

98
with the right building blocks for sound information and knowledge. Data
warehouses contain information ranging from measurements of performance to
competitive intelligence (Tanler 1997).
Data mining tools and techniques can be used to search stored data for patterns
that might lead to new insights. Furthermore, the data warehouse is usually the
driver of data-driven decision support systems (DSS), discussed in the
following subsection.
Thierauf (1999) describes the process of warehousing data, extraction, and
distribution. First data extraction of operational production data takes place,
and this data is passed on to the warehouse database. A server hosts the data
warehouse and the DSS. This server then passes on the extracted data to the
warehouse database, which is employed by users to extract data through some
form of software.
Warehousing Data: Design and Implementation
Tanler (1997) identifies three stages in the design and implementation of the
data warehouse. The first stage is largely concerned with identifying the critical
success factors of the enterprise, so as to determine the focus of the systems
applied to the warehouse. The next step is to identify the information needs of
the decision makers. This involves the specification of current information
lacks and the stages of the decision-making process (i.e. the time taken to
analyze data and arrive at a decision). Finally, warehousing data should be
implemented in a way that ensures that users understand the benefit early on.
The size of the database and the complexity of the analytical requirements must
be determined. Deployment issues, such as how users will receive the
information, how routine decisions must be automated, and how users with
varying technical skills can access the data, must be addressed.
According to Frank (2002), the success of the implementation of the data
warehouse depends on:
1. Accurately specifying user information needs
2. Implementing metadata: Metadata is essentially data about data. This is regarded
as a particularly crucial step. Parankusham & Madupu (2006) outline the different
roles of metadata as including: data characterization and indexing, the facilitation
or restriction of data access, and the determination of the source and currency of
data. They further identify the lifecycle of metadata as:

99
1. Collection: Identification and capture
2. Maintenance: Updating of metadata to match changes in data architecture
3. Deployment: Users access the relevant metadata, based on their needs.
To this, we can add the 5 criteria presented on the www.syntelinc.com website:
3. Recognize that the job is probably harder than you expect: A large portion
of the data in data warehouses is incorrect, missing, or input in such a way that it
is not usable (e.g. historical databases that have not been updated to modern
schemas).
4. Understand the data in your existing systems: Analyze existing databases. Identify
relationships between existing data systems so as to avoid inconsistencies when
these are moved to the warehouse.
5. Be sure to recognize equivalent entities: Identify equivalent entities in
heterogeneous systems, which may appear under a different name.
6. Emphasize early wins to build support throughout the organization
7. Consider outsourcing your data warehouse development and maintenance:
Implementing a data warehouse can be a huge task that can often be better
handled by experts. Many data warehousing applications are suited for
outsourcing.
If properly designed and implemented, the goal of warehousing data is to
drastically reduce the time required in the decision making process. To do so, it
employs three tools, namely Online Analytical Processing System (OLAP),
data mining, and data visualization (Parankusham & Madupu 2006).
OLAP
OLAP allows three functions to be carried out.
 Query and reporting: Ability to formulate queries without having to use the
database programming language.
 Multidimensional analysis: The ability to carry out analyses from multiple
perspectives. Tanler (1997) provides an example of a product analysis that can be
then repeated for each market segment. This allows for quick comparison of data
relationships from different areas (e.g. by location, time, etc.). This analysis can
include customers, markets, products, and so on,
 Statistical analysis: This function attempts to reduce the large quantities of data
into formulas that capture the answer to the query.

100
OLAP is basically responsible for telling the user what happened to the
organization (Thierauf 1999). It thus enhances understanding reactively, using
summarization of data and information.
What is Data Mining?
This is another process used to try to create useable knowledge or information
from data warehousing. Data mining, unlike statistical analysis, does not start
with a preconceived hypothesis about the data, and the technique is more suited
for heterogeneous databases and date sets (Bali et al 2009). Karahoca and
Ponce (2009) describe data mining as "an important tool for the mission critical
applications to minimize, filter, extract or transform large databases or datasets
into summarized information and exploring hidden patterns in knowledge
discovery (KD)." The knowledge discovery aspect is emphasized by Bali et al
(2009), since the management of this new knowledge falls within the KM
discipline.
It is beyond the scope of this site to offer an in-depth look at the data mining
process. Instead, I will present a very brief overview, and point readers that are
interested in the technical aspects towards free sources of information.
Very briefly, data mining employs a wide range of tools and systems, including
symbolic methods and statistical analysis. According to Botha et al (2008),
symbolic methods look for pattern primitives by using pattern description
languages so as to find structure. Statistical methods on the other hand measure
and plot important characteristics, which are then divided into classes and
clusters.
Data mining is a very complex process with different process models. One is
the Cross-Industry Standard Process for Data Mining (or Crisp-DM). The
process involves six steps (Maraban et al, in Karahoca & Ponce 2009):
Business understanding -> data understanding -> data preparation -> modeling
-> evaluation -> deployment
For more on data mining see the book "Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery
in Real Life Applications", edited by Ponce & Karahoca (2009), available for
free from intechopen.com where numerous other potentially relevant resources
can also be downloaded.

101
Data Visualization
This process involves representing data and information graphically so as to
better communicate its content to the user. It is a way to make data patterns
more visible, more accessible, easier to compare, and easier to communicate.
Data visualization includes graphical interfaces, tables, graphs, images, 3D
presentations, animation, and so on (Turban & Aaronson in Parankusham &
Madupu 2006).
DSS are other tools used in conjunction with warehousing data. These are
discussed in the following subsection.
Decision Support Systems
There are several kinds of such systems, however, in this subsection I will look
at only at data-driven decision support systems (from now on referred to solely
as decision support systems). The role of these systems is to access and
manipulate data. They usually work with a data warehouse, use an online
analytical processing system (OLAP), and employ data mining techniques. The
goal is to enhance decision-making and solve problems by working with the
manager rather than replacing him.
A decision support system can be a valuable tool. However, in order to be able
to provide the information that each expert would find relevant, the user must
be involved in the development and the post audit evaluation of the decision
support system (Liebowitz 1999). This involvement must span not just the
content issues, but also the presentation and the organization of the
information. This is necessary to ensure that the system fulfills the three criteria
that determine its success, namely compatibility, understandability, and
effectiveness (Rouse in Liebowitz 1999).
If these three criteria are met, decision support systems can be invaluable in
expanding the scope of information that each expert can handle. As a result,
cognitive limitations become less important in determining the amount of
source material that the expert can use.

102
One advantage and limitation of the decision support system is that it is user
driven. This implies that the system answers queries what the expert inputs, but
does not carry out further analysis on its own. It is therefore not a form of
artificial intelligence like other decision-making tools.
Knowledge management (KM) is involved in two ways here. Normally the area
that is emphasized is that decision support systems can enhance the manager's
knowledge through knowledge discovery and supply of relevant information.
However, knowledge and KM activities are key components in how the
manager uses the system, i.e. the direction of the analysis that he carries out,
and the knowledge that he is looking for. Kiku (2006) emphasizes that a
decision support system must be designed in light of KM. An effective decision
support system thus requires that the organization:
 Investigates the decisions made within their firm
 Compares these decisions with KM activities
 Evaluates any current decision support system in light of this
 Modifies said system if necessary
Content Management Systems
Content management systems are very relevant to knowledge management
(KM) since they are responsible for the creation, management, and distribution
of content on the intranet, extranet, or a website. Content management is a
discipline in itself, so this section will be relatively brief, only outlining the
basic considerations.
A content management system may have the following functions:
 Provide templates for publishing: Making publishing easier and more consistent
with existing structure/design.
 Tag content with metadata: I.e. Allowing the input of data that classifies content
(e.g. keywords) so that it can be searched for and retrieved.
 Make it easy to edit content
 Version control: Tracking changes to pages and, if necessary, allowing previous
versions to be accessed
 Allow for collaborative work on content
 Integrated document management systems
 Workflow management: Allowing for parallel content development
 Provide extensions and plug-ins for increased functionality
 Etc.

103
Content management systems come in different forms (and prices), and an
organization must carefully evaluate what it needs. Tanya Sahu (2007) presents
six general factors for consideration:
 Technology: Including dynamic vs static publishing, high load performance,
security issues, and search engine ranking factors (static pages rank better).
 Ease of use: Most users are non-technical. Therefore, it is important to assess the
ease of use of the end user content editing interface, the template-building
interface, and the content approval system.
 Total cost of ownership: I.e. the costs in the long run, including maintenance and
applications.
 Cross Platform Support and Scalability: Can it handle multiple operating
systems? Can it integrate with other server side technologies?
 Web Presence Management: The system should allow for the management of
different websites separately and securely so as to manage multiple web presences
(e.g. site on the intranet vs site on the extranet).
 Solution deployment: How long will it take to move content onto the content
management system and how hard will the process be?
James Robertson (2003) stresses that the processes that surround the content
management system are of most value to the management of knowledge. Apart
from what has been already discussed, he emphasizes processes such as the
restructuring and rewriting of content carried out by professional writers
supported by experts. This not only improves the accessibility and presentation,
but also points to content gaps.
As one can see, selection and implementation of a content management system
is something that requires careful consideration. As with all KM related IT
systems, the functionality must be weighed against organizational needs and
processes as well as expected costs. If properly implemented, the content
management system can be very beneficial to KM, by improving the quality
of explicit knowledge, and providing limited support to tacit knowledge transfer by
identifying content authors (i.e. experts) and supporting collaborative projects.

104
Document Management Systems
Document management systems, as the name implies, are systems that aid in
the publishing, storage, indexing, and retrieval of documents. Although such
systems deal almost exclusively with explicit knowledge, the sheer volume of
documents that an organization has to deal with makes them useful and in some
cases even mandatory. Often they are a part of content management systems.
Usually, a document management system will include the following functions:
1. Capturing: In order for paper documents to be useable by the document
management system, they must be scanned in. For companies that need to carry out this
process and who have numerous paper documents this may be time consuming and
expensive.
2. Classification using metadata: Metadata (data about data) is used to identify the
document so that it can be retrieved later. It can include keywords, date, author,
etc. The user is often asked to input this metadata or the system may extract it
from the document. Optical character recognition may be used to identify text on
scanned images.
3. Indexing: There are many different forms, and a good indexing system is crucial.
The index function will use metadata.
4. Searching & retrieval: The document management system's search function is
one of its most important elements. Search functions can be more or less
sophisticated, allowing for searches by elements of the document's metadata, or
by searching the actual document for key words/phrases and using semantic
analysis to determine relevance.
5. Versioning: Storage and management of different versions of documents - useful
for documents that require frequent updating. Allows authorized users to return to
earlier versions.
6. Administration & security: Any IT system needs to be regulated and policed.
Users require different levels of authorization, with certain more sensitive
functions/documents being available only to selected users/administrators.
Document management systems will also have backup systems in place in case of
mishaps.
Document management systems, as the name implies, are systems that aid in

105
the publishing, storage, indexing, and retrieval of documents. Although such
systems deal almost exclusively with explicit knowledge, the sheer volume of
documents that an organization has to deal with makes them useful and in some
cases even mandatory. Often they are a part of content management systems.
Beyond this, they may include a whole host of possible features, including
multiple platform support, multiple/customizable interfaces, workflow
modules, file/format conversions, etc. Prices vary accordingly and solutions
should be carefully matched to organizational requirements. There is also an
open source system called Open KM that, despite its somewhat misleading use
of the term "knowledge management", seems to have gathered a significant
degree of popularity.
Compared to non-electronic systems, the document management systems offer
reduced operational costs, improved efficiency and speed of retrieval, improved
consistency, and more safety (both in terms of file backups and security
measures). There are hundreds of systems out there, each with their own
strengths and weaknesses. The points to consider are: purchasing/set up costs,
types of features, training, upkeep, ease of use etc. Be sure to assess each one in
light of your specific needs and your organizational processes.
Knowledge Management Resources and
Techniques
In this section, we compile various resources and techniques that knowledge
management (KM) practitioners can use to introduce KM and its supporting
practices to an organization. I will focus only on non-technical knowledge
management resources, as IT-based tools are discussed in the KM Tools
and knowledge management systems sections. Those sections deal with actual IT
based tools and the general implementation of systems respectively.
For now, we will look at the following non-technical knowledge management
resources and techniques:
 Cross-functional project teams
 KM training & education
 Storytelling
 Mentoring

106
The subsections in this category have been kept intentionally brief, offering a
general overview of the knowledge management resource in question. The goal
is to provide the KM practitioner with an overview of the resources available to
him. More segments will be added in the future.
Cross-functional project teams
This basically refers to the practice of assembling project teams using members
of the organization from different functions. Typically, this would involve
selecting a number of specialists under a generalist project manager.
The role of project manager can be particularly demanding when using cross-
functional project teams. Apart from being an expert at project management,
the project manager must also have enough general knowledge to understand
what his specialists know and how it can be used. The project manager must
also be skilled at conflict resolution, which is more likely to happen within a
diverse group.
As with all projects but perhaps more so for cross-functional project teams,
proper planning is required, which involves clear definitions of the roles and
responsibilities of the project team, as well as a timeline and cost estimation
(Zoerman 2008).
Cross-functional project teams have several key benefits related not only to
knowledge management (KM) but also to innovation. These are:
 Creation of new knowledge: Project teams have often been considered to be a
particularly important source of new knowledge, particularly when they are given a
certain degree of freedom and autonomy (Zoerman 2008, Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995,
Peters 1988). Ideally, the project team should be self-organizing and be able to make its
own project decisions. Using cross-functional project teams allows for the integration of
a wider knowledge base into the project.
 Sharing across organizational boundaries: The team members work together during
the project, enabling the transfer of all types of knowledge. In the absence of this kind of
arrangement, often only explicit knowledge could be transferred, since these specialists
would typically not socialize professionally.
 Support of the creation of informal knowledge networks: As we have previously
determined, particularly in the section on communities of practice, informal networks are

107
a crucial part of organizational learning. Cross-function project teams bring people
together from different parts of the organization, encouraging future collaboration and the
expansion of personal informal networks.
Knowledge Management Training
This is almost always expensive but it can be very useful. Trained consultants
can work with all aspects of the organization, not just implementing KM
processes but also educating the managers in the subject. Make sure to have a
good grasp of what the consultant plans to do, and to emphasize the training
aspect. Have local management be involved hands-on throughout the process,
working with the consultants so as to pass on their tacit knowledge. Finally,
give the consultants the freedom to do their jobs, understanding that knowledge
management is a process that involves the entire organization.
A similarly broad definition is presented by Davenport & Prusak (2000), which
states that KM "is managing the corporation's knowledge through a
systematically and organizationally specified process for acquiring, organizing,
sustaining, applying, sharing and renewing both the tacit and explicit
knowledge of employees to enhance organizational performance and create
value."
We will also choose to answer the question "what is knowledge management"
in the broader perspective, encompassing not just the exploitation and
management of existing knowledge assets, but the also the initiatives involved
in the creation and acquisition of new knowledge. In the next article, I will
arrive at a specific knowledge management definition.
Storytelling
Storytelling is a very old technique, dating back throughout most of human
history. The practice is embedded into our culture; it was the primary form of
family entertainment before the television (which is a different medium for
story telling), it is mastered by competent politicians and journalists, and it
remains as one of the most effective ways to reach someone and move them
with your message.

108
Stories can be used to shape vision, to pass on knowledge and wisdom, and to
shape identity and organizational culture. Storytelling is regarded as one of the
most effective and influential techniques, and has been documented extensively
in numerous fields. Sole & Wilson (2002) identify the role of storytelling as
follows:
1. Share norms and values: Stories act as a medium for passing on values and
creating vision.
2. Developtrust and commitment: Personal stories can communicate one's own
ability and commitment, as well as conveying openness by sharing something
personal. Organizational stories influence the perceived trustworthiness of the
firm and its management (either positively or negatively).
3. Share tacit knowledge: Enables the users to articulate tacit knowledge and
communicate with feeling, which helps them convey more than they realize that
they know (Weaver 2005 in Bali et al 2009).
4. Facilitate unlearning: Unlearning often requires more than rational arguments. It
needs an intuitive and emotional anchor, which stories can provide.
5. Generate emotional connection: We connect with stories emotionally and a
story that has had an impact on us will be easily recalled long into the future.
Bali et al (2009) talk of the power of the narrative. The best narratives must
have a beginning, middle, and an end. The more interesting and powerful, the
more likely it is that they will be remembered. Steve Denning (2000) adds a
number of other characteristics of a good story, including:
1. Focusing on the positive (a "happy ending), and conveying success stories.
2. Having a "hero", and be told from that person's perspective
3. Having an unusual plot - something that captures our attention.
The narrative can make use of more or less any verbal or written form of
communication, as well as images, video, etc.
Liebowitz (2009) refers to storytelling as the organization's oral histories.
According to him, stories can capture knowledge and routines of the past,
enabling workers in the present to adapt it to the new conditions.
Offering more specific guidelines for using stories is impossible, since they will
each depend upon the context of the organization. However, management

109
should be aware of their importance and influence, and of their potential as a
change agent.
One example of the way storytelling is managed is offered by Jeff Hester
(2011). He outlines an example of how storytelling is used successfully at
Fluor. One of the formal techniques employed by management aims to collect
stories from the employees through a form that respondents fill out. In it, they
are asked to share their success stories, describing why they consider it a
success and what value it generated (Hester 2011).
Stories can thus be organizational - capturing history, culture, wisdom, etc.- or
they can be leadership tools. For the latter, it is used by the leader to achieve a
desired effect. Sole & Wilson (2002) offer a few considerations for the use of
storytelling in this way:
 Be clear on why you are telling it
 Keep it simple and accessible
 Try using more than one medium
 Monitor how the story is received
 Hone your story-listening skills
Mentoring
Mentoring is one of the most effective ways of passing down tacit know-how
from an expert to an aspiring expert. This practice dates back throughout
human history, and is just as relevant today.
Mentoring is about practice under the guidance of an expert. Unlike classroom
learning, the apprentice or mentee is given practical tasks, under the
supervision and guidance of his mentor.
Liebowitz (2009) refers to formal mentoring programs as a well-established
way to retain and transfer knowledge. He highlights an example from the
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, where the mentoring program runs for a
year, and includes assignments, meetings, formal mentor training, assessment,
etc.
Mentoring can be implemented both formally (as above) and informally.
Informal mentor relationships could involve assigning a guide to a new
employee, or simply encouraging him to seek out a mentor. For the most part

110
however, organizations are beginning to look at formal relationships designed
to train the newcomer as quickly and effectively as possible.
The characteristics of an ideal mentor are (based on the work of Clutterbuck
2001 and Heathfield 2011):
1. Personal expertise
2. Familiarity with the organization: its procedures, culture, etc.
3. Desire to teach/guide
4. Ability to motivate
5. Ability to allow for personal development of the mentee: Must accept different
approaches and offer his own advice as an alternative not a mandate.
6. Commitment: time, resources, persistence, etc.
7. Skilled communicator
8. Ability to remain professional: includes the ability to realize when the
mentoring relationship has run its course and/or when it is no longer functioning
9. Self-aware and self-critical
10. Ability to foster trust
Mentoring is a key process for knowledge management. Apart from
transferring tacit knowledge and retaining expertise within the organization, it
can also help the mentee to become a recognized and accepted member of the
community, by passing on corporate vision and values and improving his grasp
of corporate networking (Clutterbuck 2001). Companies should therefore
consider implementing formal mentoring relationships and mentor training as
an investment in the future knowledge stock of the organization.
Knowledge Management Failure Factors
In 2013 and 2014, I tried to synthesize the knowledge management (KM) failure
factors that have been discussed in cases and studies for the last 10 years or so.
This resulted in an article that I am currently offering for free from this site.
You can download it by clicking this link. This section and the articles within it
are based on that paper (though without the same level of detail).
It is fair to say that the history of KM has been a very bumpy one. Over the
years, KM initiatives have been associated with countless failures, making

111
many companies and executives very apprehensive at considering
implementing such a program.
The Issue of Definition
In order to understand how these knowledge management failures came about
and how they could be prevented, it is important first to understand the
ambiguity that surrounds our entire discipline. There are several factors that
come into play here:

What is KM exactly? Sadly, there is no correct answer to this question, and there
is virtually no consensus on what KM actually is. Part of the problem is that there
is little consensus on what knowledge is, and this makes KM a very ambiguous
concept. For instance, some views, which regard knowledge as virtually
synonymous with information, would consider a "KM" initiative to be something
much shallower and technology driven.
 What is failure exactly? Failure and success are inextricably linked to
expectations. You can only fail when you fall short of where you wanted to go.
KM went through a buzz-word phase at the turn of the century and during that
time expectations were sky high. So whenever one assesses failure, it is always
important to ask if the expectations where realistic to begin with.
The reason I mentioned the above is because whenever someone talks of KM
failing or succeeding, it is very important to understand what exactly they mean
by KM and what exactly they expected from it. For this reason, the first article
in this section deals with the problem of a lack of universal definition of KM.
KM Failure Factors
Based on the works of numerous researchers and authors, we arrived at two
categories of factors, namely "causal" and "resultant".
Causal factors refer to fundamental problems within the organization, which
lead to conditions that are not suitable for KM. They are not always easily
visible and they lead to a number of symptoms, which I have termed “resultant”
factors.

112
Below we have included an overview of these factors. For each of these points,
there is substantial empirical evidence as well as theoretical deliberations
linking them to KM failure (and conversely, to KM success). Please note that
these factors are not listed in order of importance, nor does anyone causal
factor correspond to a specific resultant factor.
Causal Failure Factors:
 Lack of performance indicators and measurable benefits
 Inadequate management support
 Improper planning, design, coordination, and evaluation
 Inadequate skill of knowledge managers and workers
 Problems with organizational culture
 Improper organisational structure
Resultant Failure Factors:
 Lack of widespread contribution
 Lack of relevance, quality, and usability
 Overemphasis on formal learning, systematization, and determinant needs
 Improper implementation of technology
 Improper budgeting and excessive costs
 Lack of responsibility and ownership
 Loss of knowledge from staff defection and retirement
Lack of a Universal Definition of Knowledge Management
before discussing specific failure factors, we want to touch upon an issue that
KM has faced since its conception: the lack of a commonly accepted definition.
Although this is not usually listed specifically as a failure factor, it is widely
recognized as a problem within the field and it is something that affects every
study, discussion, or recommendation within KM.
According to Michael Sutton (2007: 1):
KM does not appear to possess the qualities of a discipline. If anything, KM
qualifies as an emerging field of study. Those involved in the emerging field of
KM are still vexed today by the lack of a single, comprehensive definition, an
authoritative body of knowledge, proven theories, and a generalized conceptual
framework.

113
There are a couple of reasons for this. First, there is little consensus regarding
what knowledge actually is (Mika, 2004:1). Some regard knowledge as being
virtually synonymous with information, while others incorporate concepts such
as experience, know-how, know-what, understanding, values, etc. At the risk of
generalization, the former approach tends to be more common in IT dominated
circles while the latter is more prevalent in business management literature.
Second, KM has a wide range of contributors from different fields, industries,
and so on, which further perpetuates different understandings of what the term
actually means. Onyancha and Ocholla (2009: 2) identify the following
disciplines as being the greatest contributors to, or users of KM: computer
science, business, management, library and information science, engineering;
psychology, multidisciplinary science, energy and fuels, social sciences,
operation research and management science, and planning and development.
To illustrate some of the differences in the definition of KM, compare the
following three definitions with the one I selected for this paper in the previous
section:
1. GMI Market Research Terms (2013): Knowledge management "is a system that
affords control, dissemination, and usage of information. This is often a Net-
enabled corporate initiative.
2. "Knowledge Based Solutions, Definition of Terms (2002): "Knowledge
Management is a set of processes used to effectively use a knowledge system to
locate the knowledge required by one or more people to perform their assigned
tasks."
3. Skyrme (2011b): "Knowledge Management is
the explicit and systematic management of vital knowledge - and its
associated processes of creation, organization, diffusion, use and exploitation - in
pursuit of business objectives."
We chose these three definitions because they represent largely incompatible
views. In reality, I could have selected from literally dozens and dozens of KM
definitions, all of which regard the discipline somewhat differently.
Looking at the definitions above, the most striking aspect should be that
definition 1 does not even mention the word “knowledge”. According to that
definition, KM is information focused technological discipline. It should also
be apparent that definition 2, although more nuanced than definition 1, is still
far narrower in scope and far more technology-dependent than Skyrme's

114
definition (no. 3), while at the same time also lacking the strategic element that
Skyrme implies through the term "vital" knowledge.
The problem with a lack of a common definition is that each KM initiative
could, in theory, have widely different goals, scope, and success criteria. The
differences are so great that to even talk of KM failures or successes is
potentially misleading. Moreover, if there is a lack of understanding as to what
knowledge or KM represents within the firm itself, it is easy to see how
problems, misunderstandings, and widely different expectations could arise.
Therefore, when dealing with KM, keep in mind that before when you are
faced with results, advice, theories, etc. it is imperative to first understand what
the author meant by knowledge management. Secondly, whenever you deal
with KM in your organization, make sure everyone is on the same page as to
what KM is and hopes to achieve.
Careers in Knowledge Management
In this section we are going to take a look at what one needs to pursue a career
in knowledge management. Below we will start by talking a bit about the kind of
KM educations and courses one can find from a general perspective. In the
other subsections we will take a look at the positions that are available within
this field and then at the skills that are required for a knowledge management
career.
KM Programs

115
KM can be taken as a standalone discipline or as part of a broader education.
KM courses and certifications exist at all levels, though it is usually taken as a
graduate level subject. As with all subjects, the depth of the course will affect
the kind of position that you are qualified for within the spectrum of KM-
related positions (see "Knowledge Management Positions and Roles"). The
types of educations that might include KM (but not mention it in the title)
typically deal with subjects such as innovation, IM, technology
Generally speaking, KM programs tend to have either a managerial/business or
an IT focus. Since KM is now inextricably linked to technology at least to some
degree, there will be a certain degree of overlap; however, the educational
programs available in the various institutions do tend to have a "business
school" or "IT school" focus. Similarly, positions in companies often reflect
this. This means that some programs will focus more extensively on the details
of KMS architecture, the design/implementation of expert systems or intranets,
and so on, while others will focus more on the tacit nature of knowledge, on
organizational culture issues, and on the management of people & teams.
Whichever kind of program you choose, it is important to remember that even
though technology is an important part of KM today, it is never a solution in
itself and it should be used carefully as part of a broader KM strategy.
Knowledge Management Positions and Roles
n this section, we will provide an overview of the knowledge management roles
that one may find in a company. It is important to note that different companies
may have some, all, or none of these positions. Furthermore, many will be part
time roles (Skyrme 2011), representing a portion of an employee’s/manager’s
responsibilities; this can even be the case for a top position like a CKO (Ning
2006). Alternatively, multiple roles may be integrated into one position, or
the knowledge management responsibilities may be a part of more general
functions (e.g. an intellectual capital manager, an information worker, etc.).
However, these are the general roles that one can expect to fulfill in one
capacity or another if one pursues a career in KM.
Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO) / Chief Learning Officer (CLO): This
represents the highest position within the field of KM. The CKO or CLO is

116
responsible for the overall strategy, planning, and implementation. The CKO or
CLO will be responsible for (Rusonow 2003 in Dalkir 2005):
 Formulating KM strategy.
 Handling KM operations.
 Influencing change in the organization.
 Managing KM staff
Due to the importance of this position, the required knowledge and skills of the
CKO (or CLO) are specifically addressed in the section on Knowledge
Management Skills.
Knowledge Manager: This is a general term for an executive who works with
the CKO to implement knowledge initiatives and who manages KM efforts
(Department of Navy, CIO). Examples of projects undertaken by knowledge
managers include strategizing KM and change management, taxonomy
construction, social network analysis, etc. (Ning 2006).
KM Champions / Knowledge Leaders: Promote KM in an organization
(Dalkir 2005), often by championing specific initiatives, e.g. re-designing the
intranet, facilitating communities of practice, constructing taxonomies, etc. (Ning
2006).
Knowledge Navigators / Knowledge Brokers: Someone who knows where
knowledge is located (Dalkir 2005) and who connects people with knowledge
to those who need it (Skyrme 2011).
Knowledge Synthesizers / Knowledge Stewards: This role is responsible for
keeping knowledge up to date (Skyrme 2011) and recording significant
knowledge to organizational memory (Dalkir 2005).
Knowledge Editor: Someone who manages the format and language of explicit
knowledge so that a user can more easily utilize it (Skyrme 2011).
Knowledge Analyst: Someone who translates user needs into knowledge
requirements (Skyrme 2011).
Knowledge Transfer Engineer: Captures and codifies tacit knowledge so as to
facilitate its reuse. Also facilitates the transfer of tacit knowledge by connecting
relevant people (Department of Navy, CIO).

117
Knowledge Systems Engineer: This is a systems expert who creates solutions
for KM initiatives through the use of portals, intranets, databases, and so on
(Department of Navy, CIO).
Apart from this, you have a whole host of positions involved directly or
indirectly within KM, including everything from content publishers, human
resource roles, mentors, librarians, etc (Dalkir 2005). In some capacities, such
positions may receive a designation which includes “knowledge management”,
e.g. knowledge management assistant.
The roles and positions outlined above are not exhaustive; there are countless
other ways to organize and name the KM functions. However, they should
cover the main responsibilities of KM workers and managers.
Knowledge Management Skills
In this section we will draw upon several sources to outline the skills necessary
for a career within knowledge management. Evidently, different positions will
emphasize different aspects of KM, with leadership positions requiring a great
ability to manage, influence, and organize, while technical positions would
focus more on IT skills (relatively speaking). Over the years, there have been
several approaches to defining these skills from various perspectives. Below we
will talk first about the skills of the knowledge worker and then specifically of
knowledge managers and the CKO or CLO (henceforth referred to as the
CKO).
The Skills of Knowledge Workers
On a very general level, Mohanta (2010) identifies six characteristics that all
knowledge workers need to some degree:
1. Possessing factual and theoretical knowledge
2. Finding and accessing information
3. Ability to apply information
4. Communication skills
5. Motivation
6. Intellectual capabilities.

118
This provides a foundation for understanding the basic knowledge management
skill set, but it does not include the skills needed for more specialized positions,
e.g. within management or IT systems.
For this we turn to the knowledge management skills map presented by TFPL
(2000). TFPL is a UK-based recruitment, training, and consultancy company
for the knowledge, information, and data industries. Their knowledge
management skills map is the result of an extensive survey of over 500
organizations. According to their research, they defined the following general
categories, each consisting of a large set of skills:
 Strategic & Business Skills: Includes business planning, industry knowledge,
strategic thinking, leadership, and organizational skills.
 Management Skills: Includes business processes, people management, process
mapping, team building, and measurement.
 Intellectual & Learning Skills: Includes problem solving, mentoring, conceptual
thinking, being analytical, and the ability to deal with ambiguity.
 Communication and Interpersonal Skills: Includes listening, negotiation,
marketing, team working, and consulting.
 Information Management Skills: Includes codification, content management,
information processes, taxonomies, and IT applications.
 IT skills: Includes database management, information architecture, programming,
software applications, and workflow.
Depending on the specific KM position, some of these skills will be
emphasized ahead of others. For example, according to TFPL, a knowledge
worker would rely more heavily on communication & interpersonal skills and
thinking & learning skills, while requiring least ability within management. By
contrast, a CKO would require little skill within information management and
IT, and high skills in the other categories (particularly within strategic &
business skills).
Another useful skill is identified by Skyrme (2011), who notes
that "knowledge networking" is considered a key ability for their KM team
members. Knowledge networking is explained as the ability to connect with
people and continuously expand one's networks to include other knowledgeable
persons.

119
Knowledge Managers and the CKO
McKeen & Staples (2002) conducted a survey of 41 knowledge managers and
from it they created a tentative portrait of the knowledge manager:
 Highly educated
 Already a seasoned organizational performer. Chosen for KM based on proven
performance.
 Seeks new knowledge
 Likes "being at the forefront of something new and exciting"
 Derives more motivation from a challenge than from formal power
 Receives intrinsic rewards from helping others
 A risk-taker
 Sees KM as a way to "make a mark within the organization".
Looking more closely at the CKO, TFPL regard the most important
characteristics of a CKO to be first and foremost strategic & business skills,
followed by thinking & learning skills and communication & interpersonal
skills. Baren 2011 offers a similar though more specific perspective, by
identifying five core areas within which CKOs should possess as many skills as
possible:
1. Knowledge Management Experience
2. Learning Industry Experience
3. Technology Project Management
4. Matrix Management Skills
5. Industry Subject Matter Expertise
Again, the emphasis is on very strong management skills, though with certain
specializations. For instance, in his experience within technology management,
the CKO should have rolled out new solutions and acted as a liaison between
business and technology. His matrix management skills should include
enabling cross-functional teams and being comfortable in a "matrix reporting
environment" (Baren 2011).
This concludes this article on knowledge management skills. Hopefully, it
should have helped shed some light on the type of skills required by knowledge
workers, and particularly on what constitutes a competent knowledge manager
and/or CKO.

120
References
Below is the list of sources for the work presented on this article.
First, for those of you interested in reading more on this, I particularly
recommend:
Botha et al. (2008): The book is in two parts. The first presents a very concise
and in-depth overview of knowledge management (KM), organizational
learning, organizational memory, organizational culture, and so on. The second
part offers one of the most in-depth looks at knowledge management systems that I
have ever seen in a KM book.
Gamble & Blackwell 2001: An older text, but a very well written one, presenting
an excellent overview of KM, which extends beyond what is offered in most
books (e.g. discussing external relationships).
Liebowitz (2009): A short book focused on knowledge retention. It offers many
interesting case studies, taking a more practical oriented approach than other
texts.
There are many noted authors that I did not list above (e.g. Brown & Duguid's
contribution to communities of practice) since I was trying to point the reader in
the direction of more general KM texts.
Ackerman, M.S. (1996) Definitional and Contextual Issues in Organizational
and Group Memories, Information Technology and People Vol 9, no 1, pp. 10-
24.
Ackoff, R.L. (1999) Re-creating the corporation: a design of organizations for
the 21st century, Oxford University Press.
After Action Reviews, Wikipedia, retrieved on January 2011 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_action_review
Ahn, J.H. and Chang S.G. (2004), 'Assessing the contribution of knowledge to
business performance: the KP3 methodology', Decision Support Systems, no.
36, pp. 403– 416.

121
Akhavan, P., Jafari, M., and Fathian, M. (2005), 'Exploring Failure-Factors of
Implementing Knowledge Management Systems in Organizations', Journal of
Knowledge Management Practice, [electronic], vol. 6, May, pp. 1-8, Available:
http://www.tlainc.com/jkmpv6.htm
Alavi, M., and Leidner, E.D. (2002). Knowledge Management and Knowledge
Systems. In Barnes Stuart (ed) Knowledge Management Systems: Theory and
Practice, Thomsen Learning 2002
Al-Hakim, L.A.Y. and Hassan, S. (2011), 'The role of middle managers in
knowledge management implementation for innovation enhancement',
International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, vol. 2, no. 1,
pp.86-94.
Allameh, S.M., Zare, S.M., and Davoodi, S.M.R. (2011) 'Examining the Impact
of KM Enablers on Knowledge Management Processes', Procedia Computer
Science, vol 3, pp. 1211-1223.
Altaher, A.M. (2010) 'Knowledge Management Process Implementation
2011', International Journal of Digital Society (IJDS), Vol. 1, Issue 4,
December, pp. 265-271
Anantatmula, V. S. and Kanungo, S. (2007) 'Modeling enablers for successful
KM implementation', Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences.
Andreeva T. & Ikhilchik I. (2011), Applicability of the SECI Model of
knowledge creation in Russian cultural context: Theoretical analysis,
Knowledge and Process Management, vol. 18, issue 1
Argrys, C.,& Schon, D., (1996) Organizational Learning II - Theory, Method,
and Practice, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Bali, R., Wickramasinghe, N., & Lehaney B. (2009) Knowledge management
primer, London: Routledge.
Ballart, X. and Zapico, E. (2005) 'Evaluation Knowledge for Strategic
Budgeting', in Ray Rist, R. and Stame, N. (eds). From Studies to Streams.
Working Group on Knowledge Management. New Brunswick, N. J.,
Transaction Publishers.

122
Baren A. (2011). Skills for Knowledge Management Leaders retrieved 12
October 2012 from http://alanbaren.blogspot.dk/2005/09/skills-for-knowledge-
management.html
Bebensee, T., Helms, R., and Spruit, M. (2010), "Exploring Web 2.0
Applications as a means of Bolstering up Knowledge Management", in David
Gurteen (ed. 2012), Leading Issues in Social Knowledge Management (pp. 22 –
41). Academic Publishing International Limited.
Beitler, M. (2005). Organizational Culture Change: Is It Really Worth the
Effort? Retrieved on February 2011 from
http://ezinearticles.com/?Organizational-Culture-Change:--Is-It-Really-Worth-
the-Effort?&id=102525
Benassi, M., Bouquet, P., and Cuel, R. (2002), ' Success and Failure Criteria
for Knowledge Management Systems ', Vol. 0212-32. EDAMOK Project, ITC-
IRST.
Botha A, Kourie D, & Snyman R, (2008), Coping with Continuous Change in
the Business Environment, Knowledge Management and Knowledge
Management Technology, Chandice Publishing Ltd.
Brown, J.S. & Duguid, P., (1991) Organizational Learning and Communities of
Practice. Toward a Unified View of Working, Organization Science vol.2,
no.1.
Brown, J.S. & Duguid, P., (1991) Organizational Learning and Communities of
Practice. Toward a Unified View of Working, Organization Science vol.2,
no.1, pp. 40-57.
Brown, J.S. & Duguid, P., (1998), Organizing Knowledge, California
Management Review vol. 40, no.3
Bukowitz, W., & Williams, R. (1999), The Knowledge Management Field
book, Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
Carlucci, D., Marr, B., and Schiuma, G. (2004) 'The knowledge value chain:
how intellectual capital impacts on business performance', Int. J. Technology
Management, Vol. 27, No. 6/7, pp.575–590.

123
Chan, J.O. (December 1, 2009), Integrating knowledge management and
relationship management in an enterprise environment, Communications of the
IIMA
Chen., C., Huang, J. (April 2007) How organizational climate and structure
affect knowledge management-The social interaction perspective. International
Journal of Information Management. Volume 27, Issue 2, April 2007, Pages
104-118
Choi, B., & Lee, H., (2000). Knowledge Management Enablers, Processes, and
Organizational Performance: An Integration and Empirical Examination,
http://cis.kaist.ac.kr/Research/file/128.pdf
Chong, S.C., Choi, Y.S. (2005) 'Critical Factors in the Successful
Implementation of Knowledge Management', Journal of Knowledge
Management Practice, [Electronic], June, available:
http://www.tlainc.com/articl90.htm
Chua, A., and Lam, W. (2005) 'Why KM projects fail: a multi-case
analysis', Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 6-17
'Civilian Career Path Guide for Management of Technology, Information, and
Knowledge, Volume 1 (2001), Department of Navy.
Claver-Cortés, E., Zaragoza-Sáez, P., Pertusa-Ortega, E. (2007). Organizational
Structure Features Supporting Knowledge Management Processes. Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 Iss: 4, pp.45 - 57
Clutterbuck, D. (2001). Sharing wisdom. Inside knowledge, 1 Jun 2001 in
Volume 4 Issue 9
Collaborative Software. Wikipedia, retrieved February 2011 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_software
Content Management, Wikipedia, retrieved on January 2011 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_management
Cook, S.D., & Brown, J.S. (1999), Bridging Epistemologies: the Generative
Dance between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational
Knowing. Organization Science, vol. 10, no. 4.

124
Corporate Executive Board (2005), Attraction and Retention Bonuses and
Rewards, Corporate Leadership Council
Cronk, M. (2011), "Social Capital, Knowledge Sharing, and Intellectual Capital
in the Web 2.0 Enabled World", in David Gurteen (ed. 2012), Leading Issues in
Social Knowledge Management (pp. 74 – 87). Academic Publishing
International Limited.
Dalkir K. (2005), Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice, Elsevier
Inc.
Danesh, S.Y.S., Rad, N.S., Mobasher, S. N., and Danesh, M. M. S. (2012) 'The
Investigation of Mutual Relations of Success Factors of Knowledge
Management in Project-Centered Organizations', Journal of Basic and Applied
Scientific Research, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 3888-3896.
Davenport, T., De Long, D., and Beer, M.C. (1998). 'Successful knowledge
management projects', Sloan Management Review, 39 (2), pp. 43-57.
Davenport, T.H., & Prusak, L. (2000), Working Knowledge: How
Organizations Manage What They Know, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Davenport T. and Volpel S. (2001), 'The rise of knowledge towards attention
management', Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(3), pp. 212–221.
Definition of Terms (2002), Knowledge Based Solutions, available:
http://www.kwbsolutions.com/kbsterms.htm [05, Feb. 2013]
Denning, S. (2000) The Springboard: How storytelling Ignites Action in
Knowledge-era Organizations, KMCI Press
Dierickx, I., & Cool, K., (December 1989). Asset Stock Accumulation and
Sustainability of Competitive Advantage. Management Science, Vol. 35, No.
12, Printed in U.S.A.
DIKW. Wikipedia, retrieved September 2010 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIKW
Disterer, G. (2001) 'Individual and Social Barriers to Knowledge Transfer',
Conference Proceedings 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, Los Alamitos, CA:IEEE Press.

125
Document Management System, Wikipedia, Retrieved February 2011 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_management_system
Doan Q.M., Rosenthal-Sabroux C., Grundstein M. (2011), A Reference Model
for Knowledge Retention within Small and Medium-sized Enterprises. KMIS,
2011: 306-311
Drucker, P. F. (1999), Management Challenges for the 21 Century, New York
Harper Collins.
Ekinge, R., Lennartsson, B. (September 24-27, 2000), Organizational
Knowledge as a Basis for the Management of Development Projects, Accepted
to Discovering Connections: A Renaissance Through Systems Learning
Conference, Dearborn, Michigan,
Fontaine, M. and Lesser, E. (2002) 'Challenges in managing organizational
knowledge', IBM Institute for Knowledge Based Organizations
Frank, U. (2002). A Multilayer Architecture for Knowledge Management
Systems. In Barnes, S. (ed), Knowledge Management Systems: Theory and
Practice. Thomsen Learning
Fruchter R. & Demian P., (2002). Knowledge Management for Reuse, CIB
Conference Paper, 2002
Gamble, P.R., & Blackwell, J. (2001), Knowledge Management: A State of the
Art Guide, Kogan Page Ltd.
Gamelgaard J. (2007), Why Not Use Incentives To Encourage Knowledge
Sharing?, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 8, No. 1, March
2007
Garcia-Perez, A., and Ayres, R. (2009), "Wikifailure: The Limitations of
Technology for Knowledge Sharing", in David Gurteen (ed. 2012), Leading
Issues in Social Knowledge Management (pp. 88 – 105). Academic Publishing
International Limited.
Gardner, J. R. Changing and Organizational Culture. Cognitive Behaviour,
retrieved February 2011 from
www.cognitivebehavior.com/management/concepts/changing_org_culture.html

126
Gebert, H., Geib, M., Kolbe, L., & Riempp, G. (2002). Towards customer
knowledge management: integrating customer relationship management and
knowledge management concepts, St. Gallen: University of St. Gallen, Institute
of Information Management.
Good luck, I. (2011), 'Budgeting for knowledge management in
organizations', Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal,
[electronic], no. 32, available: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl32goodluck.pdf
de Gooijer, J. (2000) 'Designing a knowledge management performance
framework', Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 Iss: 4, pp.303 – 310.
Guptara, P. (1999) 'Why knowledge management fails: how to avoid the
common pitfalls', Knowledge Management Review, Vol.9, July/August, pp. 26-
29.
Gurteen, D. (2012), "Introduction to Leading Issues in Social Knowledge
Management – A brief and personal history of Knowledge Management!", in
David Gurteen (ed. 2012), Leading Issues in Social Knowledge
Management (pp. iii – viii). Academic Publishing International Limited.
Hasanali, F. (2002), 'Critical success factors of knowledge management',
[Online] available:
http://polaris.umuc.edu/mts/TMAN/TMAN_636/articles/csfs.pdf (02 Feb.
2013).
Hatch, J., (2010). Defining Organizational Knowledge: Turning individual
knowledge into organizational intellectual capital,
http://knol.google.com/k/defining-organizational-knowledge.
Heaidari, M., Moghimi, M.S., and Khanifar, H. (2011) 'The critical success
factors in implementing knowledge management: agricultural organization in
Islamic Republic of Iran', British Journal of Science 54, vol. 1, no.2,
September, pp. 54-75
Heathfield S. M., Top 15 Characteristics of a Successful Mentor, About.com:
Human Resources. Retrieved on February 20100 from
http://humanresources.about.com/od/coachingmentori2/qt/formal_mentor.htm
Hecht, M., Maier, R., Seeber, I., and Waldhart, G. (2011), "Fostering adoption,
acceptance, and assimilation in knowledge management system design", in:
Lindstaedt, S., Granitzer, M.: i-KNOW '11 - Proceedings of the 11th

127
International Conference on Knowledge Management and Knowledge
Technologies. Graz, Austria - September 07-09, New York: ACM Digital
Library, ISBN 978-1-4503-0732-1, pp. 1 - 8.
Hester, J. (2011). Successful KM Storytelling, Retrieved February 2011 from
http://www.jeffhester.net/2011/02/01/successful-km-storytelling/
Horvath, (2000-2001). "Working with Tacit Knowledge", The Knowledge
Management Yearbook
How to Succeed in Data Warehousing. Syntel, retrieved February 2011 from
http://www.syntelinc.com/Internal.aspx?id=700&s=data+warehousing
Intranet and Extranet. Kioskea.net. Retrieved February 2011 from
http://en.kioskea.net/contents/entreprise/intranet.php3
Jackson, M.H. and Williamson, J. (2011), 'Challenges of implementing systems
for knowledge management: Static systems and dynamic practices', in McPhee,
R. and Canary H. (Eds.) Communication and organizational knowledge:
Contemporary issues for theory and practice. Routledge.
Jackson, S., E., DeNisi, A., Hitt, M., A. (ed) (2003). Managing knowledge for
sustained competitive advantage: designing strategies for effective human
resource management, John Wiley and Sons
Janson, M., Brown, A. & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2008). Strategies for
Interweaving Groupware and Organizational Structure. http://csrc.lse.ac.uk
Jones, K., (2006). Knowledge management as a foundation for decision support
systems. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, Summer 2006
Khalifa, Z.A., Jamaluddin, M.Y. (2012) 'Key Success Factors affecting
Knowledge Management Implementation in Construction Industry in Libya',
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 161-164
Karahoca, A., & Ponce, J. (2009) Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery in
Real Life Applications, In-Teh, 2009
KM Skills Map, TFPL (2000), available from tfpl.com

128
Knowledge Management Career Area, Department of Navy Chief Information
Officer, retrieved 12 October from
http://www.doncio.navy.mil/workforce/cpg_km.htm#jobroles
Kreiner, K. (1999). Knowledge and Mind. In Porac, J.F., and Garud, R.
(ed.), Advances in Managerial Cognition and Organizational Information
Processing,. vol 6.
Lave, J., Wenger, E.(1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral
Participation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Lee, H., and Choi, B. (2000), 'Knowledge Management Enablers, Processes,
and Organizational Performance: An Integration and Empirical Examination',
Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(1), pp. 179-228.
Lee, K. C., Lee, S., and Kang, I. W. (2005). KMPI: Measuring knowledge
management performance. Information and Management, 42(3), pp. 469–482.
Levitt, B., and James, G.M. (1996). Organizational Learning. In Cohen,
Michael D. and Lee S. Sproull, Organizational Learning, Thousand Oaks,
California, Sage Publications, 1996
Liebowitz, J. (1999). Information Technology Management: A Knowledge
Repository, CRC Press LLC, 1999
Liebowitz, J. (2009). Knowledge Retention: Strategies and Solutions, CRC
Press, LLC
Liebowitz, J. (2011) Knowledge retention: What practitioners need to know,
retrieved October 2012 from
http://www.kmworld.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=73363
Liu, S., Duffy, A. H. B., and Boyle, I. M., & Whitfield, R. I. (2008).
Knowledge Re-use for Decision Support. In: Realizing Network Enabled
Capability (RNEC'08), 13-14 Oct 2008, Leeds, UK
Johnson, G.. (2001), Mapping and Re-Mapping Organisational Culture: A
Local Government Example, retrieved February 2011 from
http://www.strategyexplorers.com/whitepapers/Culture-Web.pdf
Longman online dictionary, http://www.ldoceonline.com/

129
Madupu, R., R., & Parankusham, K. K. (2006). The Role of Metadata in the
Data warehousing Environment, Masters thesis, Lulea University of
Technology
Maier, R. (2002). Knowledge Management Systems: Information and
Communication Technologies for Knowledge Management, Springer Verlag
Berlin Heidelberg
March J.G. (1988). Technology of Foolishness, in March, J.G., Decisions in
Organizations, Oxford: Blackwell, p253-265
Market Research Definitions (2013), [Online], Available:
http://www.marketresearchterms.com/k.php, [28 Jan. 2013].
Markus, L. (2001). Toward A Theory of Knowledge Reuse: Types of
Knowledge Reuse Situations and Factors in Reuse Success. Journal of
Management Information Systems, summer 2001, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 57-93.
McKeen, J.D., and Staples, D.S., "Knowledge Managers: Who They Are and
What They Do?", chapter in Handbook on Knowledge Management (Ed. Clyde
Holsapple), Springer-Verlag, New York, USA, 2002
Mika, P. and Akkermans, H. (2004) 'Towards a New Synthesis of Ontology
Technology and Knowledge Management', Technical Report IR-BI-001, Free
University Amsterdam VUA
Milovanović, S. (2011) 'Aims and Critical Success Factors of Knowledge
Management System Projects', Economics and Organization Vol. 8, No 1, pp.
31 - 40
Mohanta (2010). Knowledge worker productivity improvement processes,
technologies and techniques in defense R&D laboratories: an evaluative study ,
Bharath University, School of Management Studies
Mukherjee, A., Kedia, B.L., Parente, R., and Kock N (2004) 'Strategies,
Structures and Information Architectures: Toward International
Gestalts', Problems and Perspectives in Management, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 181-
195.
Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., Swan, J., Hislop, D. (2000). Intranets and
Knowledge Management: De-centred Technologies and the Limits of
Technological Discourse. In Prichard, C., Hull, R., Chumer, M., Willmostt, H.

130
(Ed), Managing Knowledge: Critical Investigations of Work and Learning,
Machmillan Business.
Nielsen, J. (2011). 10 Best Intranets of 2011. Useit.com, retrieved February
2011 from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/intranet_design.html, 2011
Ning K.S. (2006), A Career in Knowledge Management?, iKMS, retrieved 12
October 2012 from
http://knowledge.typepad.com/ikms_newsletter/2006/05/a_career_in_kno.html
Nonaka, I. (1994). Theory of Organizational Knowledge
Creation. Organizational Science, vol 5, no.1.
Nonaka I., Takeuchi H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company, Oxford
University Press.
Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H., (1996). The Theory of Organizational
Knowledge Creation. International Journal of Technology Management, vol
11, no 7/8, 1996
Ölçer, F. (2007) 'Practices of Knowledge Management in Companies: A
Turkey Survey', Proceedings of I-KNOW ’07, Graz, Austria, September 5-7
Onyancha, O.B. and Ocholla, D.N. (2009) 'Conceptualizing ‘knowledge
management’ in the context of library and information science using the
core/periphery model', South African Journal of Information Management,
[electronic], vol. 11, issue 1, pp. 1-15, available:
http://www.sajim.co.za/index.php/SAJIM/article/view/412/402
Peters, T. J. (1988). A Skunk work Tale. In Managing Professionals in
Innovation Organizations. A Collection of Readings, Katz R. (ed), Cambridge,
MA: Ballinger p433- 441
Pettersson, U. (2009), 'Success and Failure Factors for KM: The Utilization of
Knowledge in the Swedish Armed Forces', Journal of Universal Computer
Science, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 1735-1743
Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul,
1966
Pralahad, C.K., and Hamel, G. (1990). The Core Competence of the
Corporation. Harvard Business Review, May/June.

131
Rajender, K. and Kumar, K.P. (2012) 'Knowledge Management Practices in
SME Sector An Empirical Study', International Journal of Business and
Management Tomorrow Vol. 2 No. 4, April, pp. 1-9.
Ramage, M., & Reiff, F. (1996). Links between Organizational Memory and
Cooperative Awareness, retrieved from
http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/computing/research/cseg/projects/evaluation/OM
_CA.html
Robertson, J. (2003). Where is the knowledge in a CMS? Step Two Designs.
Retrieved on February 2011 from
http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/kmc_wherek/index.html
Robertson, J. (2007). There are no "KM Systems. Step Two Designs. Retrieved
February 2011 from
http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/cmb_kmsystems/index.html
Robertson, J. (2009). Seven roles of the intranet homepage. Step Two Designs.
Retrieved February 2011 from
http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/kmc_homepage/index.html
Rumyantseva, M., Gurgul, G.., & Enkel, E.(2002): Perspectives for our
partners: Knowledge Integration after Mergers & Acquisitions, in Georg von
Krogh and Andrea Back (ed), Knowledge Source, Vol. 5, St. Gallen,
Scenario Planning, Value Based Management.net, retrieved on January 2011
from http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_scenario_planning.html
Sahu, T., (2007). Six Common Factors to Consider When Selecting a
CMS. Revize, retrieved February 2011 from
http://www.revize.com/fileupload/Six_Common_Factors_to_Consider_to_selec
t_a_Web_CMS_071125.pdf
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership. John Wiley &
Sons
Senge, P.M. (1990). The Leader's New Work: Building Learning
Organizations. Sloan Management Review, pp 7-23
Singh, M.D. and Kant, R. (2008), 'Knowledge management barriers: An
interpretive structural modeling approach', International Journal of
Management Science and Engineering Management, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 141-150

132
Skyrme, D. (2011a), 'A Knowledge-Enriching Culture', [Online], Available at
http://www.skyrme.com/kmroadmap/culture.htm [03 Jan. 2013]
Skyrme, D. (2011b), 'Definition', [Online], Available at:
http://www.skyrme.com/kmbasics/definition.htm [03 Jan. 2013]
Skyrme, D. (2011c), 'Organizing for Knowledge Management', [Online],
Available at: http://www.skyrme.com/kmroadmap/roles.htm#skills [15 Jan.
2013]
Sole & Wilson (2002) Storytelling in Organizations: The power and traps of
using stories to share knowledge in organizations, Harvard University
Smith, L.D. (2007), Knowledge Retention, presentation retrieved from October
2012 from
http://www.levidsmith.com/papers/ldsmith_knowledge_retention.pdf
Storey, C. and Kahn, K.B. (2010), 'The Role of Knowledge Management
Strategies and Task Knowledge in Stimulating Service Innovation ', Journal of
Service Research, vol. 13, no. 4, pp.397-410
Sutton, M.J.D., 2007, 'Accepting knowledge management into the LIS fold: an
interdisciplinary approach', Library Student Journal 2(1), pp. 1–9.
Swan, J., Robertson, M., Newell, S. (2002). Knowledge Management: The
Human Factor. In Barnes, S. (ed), Knowledge Management Systems: Theory
and Practice, Thomsen Learning
Tan, C.N.L. (2011), 'Knowledge Management Acceptance: Success Factors
amongst Small and Medium-Size Enterprises', American Journal of Economics
and Business Administration, vol. 3, no.1, pp.73-80
Tanler, R. (1997). The Intranet Data Warehouse, John Wiley Sons Inc.
Thierauf, R. J. (1999). Knowledge Management Systems. Quorum Books.
Timbrell, T. G., & Jewels T. J. (2002). Knowledge Re-Use Situations in an
Enterprise Systems Context. Issues and Trends of Information Technology
Management in Contemporary Organizations, 19-22 May 2002, Seattle,
Washington, USA.

133
Virvou, M., & Nakamura, T., (2008). Knowledge-based software engineering:
proceedings of the Eight Joint Conference on Knowledge-Based Software
Engineering. IOS Press
Walsh, J.P. and Ungson, G.R. (1991). Organizational Memory. The Academy of
Management Review 16(1):57-91
Waltz, E. (2003), Knowledge Management in the Intelligent Enterprise, Artech
House Inc.
Weber, R. O. (2007) 'Addressing Failure Factors in Knowledge
Management', Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, [electronic],
5(3), pp. 333-346, available:
http://www.ejkm.com/issue/download.html?idArticle=117
Weber, R.O., and Aha, D.W. (2003) 'Intelligent Delivery of Military Lessons
Learned', Decision Support Systems, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 287-304.
Weber, R.., Sandhu, N., and Breslow, L. (2001) 'On the Technological, Human,
and Managerial Issues in Sharing Organizational Lessons', Proceedings of the
Fourteenth Annual Conference of the International Florida Artificial
Intelligence Research Society, Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, pp. 334-338.
Wellman, J. L. (2009). Organizational Learning: How Companies and
Institutions Manage and Apply Knowledge Palgrave Macmillian.
Wright, T., Watson, S., and Castrataro, D. (2010), "To Tweet or not to Tweet-
Social Media as a Missed Opportunity for Knowledge Management", in David
Gurteen (ed. 2012), Leading Issues in Social Knowledge Management (pp. 42 –
55). Academic Publishing International Limited.
Wu, J., Du, H., Li, X., and Li, P. (2010) 'Creating and Delivering a Successful
Knowledge Management Strategy', in M. Russ (Ed.), Knowledge Management
Strategies for Business Development (pp. 261-276). Hershey, PA: Business
Science Reference
Yaghoubi, N.M. and Maleki, N. (2012) 'Critical Success Factors of Knowledge
Management (A Case Study: Zahedan Electric Distribution Company)', J. Basic
Appl. Sci. Res., vol. 2, no.12, pp. 12024-12030.
Yazdani, B, O., Yaghoubi N, M., and Hajiabadi, M. (2011). 'Critical Success
Factors for Knowledge Management in Organization: An Empirical

134
Assessment', European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, vol. 3,
no.1, pp. 95-117.
Yip, M.W., Ng, A.H.H., and Lau, D.H.C., (2012), 'Employee Participation:
Success Factor of Knowledge Management', International Journal of
Information and Education Technology vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 262-264.
Yu-N, C., (2007). Enhancing Groupware for Knowledge Management. Fifth
International Conference on Information Technology in Asia (CITA
2007). Kuching , Malaysia.
Zanjani M.S., Rouzbehani, R., & Dabbagh, H. (2008) Proposing a Conceptual
Model of Customer Knowledge Management: A Study of CKM Tools in
British Dotcoms. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 38.
Zoerman K.W., (2008), Cross-Functional Efficiency, Retrieved 6 June 2012
from http://www.zoerman.com/cfe.pdf

Knowledge Management

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Knowledge Management

More from Sagar PATEL

Knowledge Management